Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Asylum Seekers

Anne Campbell: When he will publish his review of the voucher system for the support of asylum seekers.

Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on his policy for dealing with asylum seekers.

David Blunkett: I shall make a full statement to the House on nationality and asylum in the next fortnight. As part of that, I shall spell out the Government's approach to asylum in the years ahead, and shall publish the review of both vouchers and dispersal.

Anne Campbell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on conducting that review. However, does he understand that asylum seekers find the process of making purchases with vouchers humiliating? In addition, they are unable to get full value for money because of shops' inability to give change on the vouchers. Will my right hon. Friend therefore make sure that any future system addresses both those problems and will he try to ensure a speedy conclusion to the review?

David Blunkett: I am aware of the strong feelings—how could I not be?—about the operation of the system generally and the perception of vouchers in particular. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary initiated the voucher review, why we have taken our time to take the suggested changes on board and why I want to make any change part of a much broader package of measures.

Teddy Taylor: Is the Home Secretary aware that many of us were impressed by his integrity when, shortly after taking office, he volunteered the information that the number of asylum seeker cases in the pipeline was not about 20,000, as had been stated before, but more than 40,000? However, it would help the House a great deal more if he gave us some explanation of how that massive statistical error occurred and who was responsible.

David Blunkett: I am happy to do so. In 1996, the then Government put in place a computer system that soon collapsed; with it went the statistical base on which sensible calculation was made. It was not until we initiated a manual count that we discovered the complete mess-up following the collapse of the Siemens contract, entered into by Conservative Members. In those circumstances, of course we believed that transparency was the best way of proceeding, and that is how the Home Office team will proceed from now.

Neil Gerrard: In reviewing the voucher scheme, my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, take on board the humiliation and stigma which have been mentioned already. However, will he also look at the critical question of the value of vouchers or whatever system replaces them? Many people will not accept the replacement of the voucher system with another system that still leaves people living on significantly less than income support.

David Blunkett: The full range of issues raised, not just in the review itself but in representations by Members of Parliament, voluntary organisations and those working with refugees, will be taken on board, including the importance of providing necessary support. That will all be done in the context of getting a system that has the trust of the British people and the confidence of those who have to operate it, and sends a clear signal to the rest of the world.

James Clappison: Does the Home Secretary agree that the asylum voucher system question involves the question of value for money for the taxpayer? To illustrate those administrative costs, can the Home Secretary give the administrative cost of each £1 of vouchers provided to asylum seekers?

David Blunkett: No, I cannot, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with those details. I am aware of the calculations done about three years ago when the voucher system was first mooted. The calculation by the Department of Social Security and those administering the vouchers—the £700:£425 ratio per 1,000 claimants—did not take into account the full cost of administering the social security system. It would therefore be better if I gave the hon. Gentleman an up-to-date reply.

Glenda Jackson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents sincerely hope that the conclusions of the second review will result in the abolition of the voucher system? If it does not, and an alternative system is introduced, will he ensure that it is acceptable not only in high street shops but in high street markets?

David Blunkett: I am aware of the problems that people have had in accessing retail outlets that accept vouchers. On my hon. Friend's first point, the key issue is to see the survival or abolition of the voucher system not in isolation but as part of a review of the working of the structure and system. We need a system which allows those operating it to do the job efficiently and effectively, and which is sensible, rational and humane for those who experience it day in, day out.

Jonathan Djanogly: In his review of policy, does the Secretary of State intend to review planning policy? I refer to the proposal for an asylum seeker stop-off site in Great Gransden, which I believe is being planned with no local consultation in a rural village and which is causing considerable upset to local people. In this and future cases, will proper local consultation be undertaken?

David Blunkett: As we saw at Ashford, everyone wants something done, but somewhere else, away from their own patch. If there is to be a transition arrangement in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I am keen that we should ensure that local people know what is taking place, why and how it is to be operated. That will have to be part of the review of the dispersal system, which is designed to protect the people of Kent and London, who were overwhelmed by the way in which the previous system operated. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, implemented the dispersal system precisely because people wanted to ensure a more rational system of dispersing and placing people around the country.

Gwyn Prosser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who supported the voucher system in the belief that it would not attract people without well-founded claims have lost their taste for the system, having experienced it almost first-hand? When he examines more closely dispersal and the wider issues, will he bear it in mind that, without dispersal, the situation in places such as Dover and the south Kent ports would be unsustainable? Whatever happens at the other end, will he ensure that for the ports of east Kent, there will be some protection and that dispersal will continue?

David Blunkett: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the rational and mature way in which he has dealt with a difficult issue in and around his constituency. Thanks to the way in which he has handled himself and the issues, a great deal of difficulty has been avoided. I can give him an absolute assurance that any future dispersal system and review outcome will ensure that the people of those areas, which I recently visited, will be protected, and that a sensible way will be found, whether in the case of minors or older asylum seekers, to ensure that they are quickly, effectively and humanely found a suitable place to live which does not involve their staying around the Kent ports.

Oliver Letwin: Does the Home Secretary accept that requests for asylum can be misused by men of violence? What is his response to the statement made by the Saudi ambassador and reported in the Sunday papers that
	"many Arab governments have told the British Government repeatedly that a lot of people in Britain masquerading as political refugees are terrorists"?

David Blunkett: I welcomed the hon. Gentleman to his position last week, and I do so again. I look forward to welcoming him for a long time to come. I read the ambassador's statements a week last Sunday. I suggest that all hon. Members read the full interview in order to get the measure of what was being said and how it was being said. If any ambassador from whatever quarter suggests ways in which we might follow up those who are alleged to be terrorists, we will do so. As was made clear in the statement last Monday, we will ensure that those who come into our country and attempt to claim asylum and who are suspected of terrorism will be held and dealt with quickly and effectively.

Oliver Letwin: But is not the real problem that the Home Secretary is unable to deport people whom he regards as a threat to our national security? Given the widespread scepticism expressed in recent days, does he continue to believe that indefinite detention, otherwise known as internment, is really an adequate and sustainable solution to that problem?

Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on escaping.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend's not so sotto voce sedentary remark caps it all. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there are difficulties in removing people from the country where they would face torture, death or degrading treatment. That is true. That applies and has applied since the inception of the European convention on human rights. The question that we must address is whether we would knowingly send those people to such situations, or would we prefer to hold them pending their transfer to a third safe country. As we spelled out in a statement and in answers to questions last Monday, that depends entirely on whether there is an extradition treaty. Where there is not, it is preferable to hold people than to send them back in circumstances where there is no guarantee of a fair trial.

Closed Circuit Television

Simon Burns: What plans he has to extend CCTV in those areas that already have a CCTV presence in their town centres.

Keith Bradley: Under the crime reduction programme closed circuit television initiative, 149 town-centre schemes have been allocated funding to date, with a further eight still under consideration. Of these, 80 are extensions to existing CCTV schemes.
	To date 636 schemes have been approved under the CCTV initiative, and 47 are still under consideration.

Simon Burns: Is the Minister aware that the CCTV system in the centre of Chelmsford, which was funded by the previous Conservative Government and funded by the present Government, has had a dramatic impact in reducing crime levels in the area and increasing the number of people who have been apprehended while attempting to commit crime?
	Does the Minister accept that there was grave disappointment earlier this year when the bid to extend the scheme to other problem areas in Chelmsford was refused funding by the Home Office? Will he explain why there was a refusal?

Keith Bradley: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises the dramatic impact that CCTV has had on crime in Chelmsford, and that he welcomes the placing of schemes in various positions in his constituency. He should welcome the fact that these areas receive funding from the initiative. As he knows, the initiative is now closed, but there are other opportunities for funding under the communities against drugs and the small retailers in deprived areas initiatives. I am sure that Chelmsford will be considering these opportunities to ascertain whether it qualifies for the programmes.

Stephen Hepburn: Will my right hon. Friend seek to provide more resources so that CCTV can be extended to smaller shopping areas, including estate shops within our constituencies? The system is based predominantly on large town centres, and has been a force for good for both the prevention and detection of crime. Surely we should extend the advantage that the system brings to smaller shopkeepers and not confine it to multinational companies.

Keith Bradley: As I have mentioned, there is the new small retailers in deprived areas initiative, which I am sure my hon. Friend's constituency may want to consider. We are evaluating the lessons from the CCTV scheme, and I hope that we will be able to bring forward new initiatives that will go round it in future.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that since CCTV was installed in King's Lynn it has had a very beneficial effect in reducing levels of crime? Is he also aware that the police are concerned that there has been a displacement of crime into surrounding rural areas and into some surrounding towns as well? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for the installation of CCTV in the neighbouring town of Hunstanton? What is the position of that bid for CCTV?

Keith Bradley: I am not aware whether the bid to which the hon. Gentleman is referring is one of the schemes that is still under consideration. I shall look into that and write to him with the answer.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend knows about the success of the town centre CCTV scheme in Chorley, but dispersal of crime is a problem that we all fear, and is in danger of catching up with us. Will my right hon. Friend make extra resources available for areas such as Pall Mall in Chorley?

Keith Bradley: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to commit resources to his constituency from the Dispatch Box. Again, I welcome the fact that he appreciates the benefit of CCTV, which is part of the overall programme of crime reduction in the country. It must be viewed as part of a package of arrangements that we are introducing. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to press strongly for extra resources for his constituency.

Dominic Grieve: Does the Minister agree that although any initiative on CCTV may be welcome, it has to be set against the evidence that the detection rate for crime is at an all-time low of 24 per cent.—and 12 per cent. for burglary? There appears to be no overall strategy. Does he accept that, as matters stand, the criticism by Nick Ross that the Government's claim to be tough on crime is no more than meaningless garbage is valid?

Keith Bradley: I do not remember that expression. The hon. Gentleman should welcome the overall reduction in crime in specific areas and the extra investment in police. The crime fighting fund has provided for 9,000 extra police officers on top of the planned development of police recruitment. The whole package will mean tackling crime more effectively in future.

Michael Clapham: The CCTV scheme in Barnsley town centre has been successful in reducing crime and making people feel safer on the streets. There is no doubt that that has allowed the crime prevention partnership to target burglary and set the goal of a 6 per cent. reduction each year, and a 10 per cent. reduction in areas where the highest incidence occurs. However, my right hon. Friend knows that CCTV involves a displacement factor. Will he consider financing research which could be used to give guidance to local authorities when they extend CCTV projects?

Keith Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome of CCTV in Barnsley. I assure him that the initiative is being evaluated, and that there is research on the effects of CCTV and its consequences in specific areas. We will present the findings as soon as possible to guide us with new initiatives that we may introduce in future.

Asylum Seekers

Vincent Cable: What steps he is taking to enable asylum seekers to work legally.

Angela Eagle: Under the terms of the employment concession, adult asylum seekers can apply for permission to work if their application has been outstanding for longer than six months without a decision being made on it. There are no plans to alter the way in which the concession operates.

Vincent Cable: A study by the Mayor estimates that more than half of London's refugee population is economically inactive although most refugees want to work. Does the Minister accept that, economically, that is highly irrational at a time of chronic labour shortage in many service industries? Is it not even more absurd that the Government are scouring the world for qualified doctors and nurses when hundreds are sitting in this country, dependent on vouchers or in detention? Will she have a fresh look at the six-month rule and the single-applicant rule, which perpetuate an irrational and unreasonable policy?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman seems to be confusing asylum seekers with refugees. As he knows, refugees are entitled to work and we have many schemes for enabling, for example, those who have medical and nursing qualifications to work in the health service, where they are much needed.
	However, the hon. Gentleman should agree that we must not allow our asylum and immigration rules to be breached so that people traffickers decide who comes into the country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has talked about an economic migration policy, about which he will make a statement to the House soon.

Tony Banks: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the policy? There are many thousands of asylum seekers in my constituency. I do not sneer at economic migrants, who have come to this country to try to make a contribution. Thousands of them have nothing to do. If that position is allowed to persist, they will enter the unofficial economy, as they undoubtedly already do. It is demeaning to individuals who want to work not to be able to do so. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to think about the policy again.

Angela Eagle: If those people have applied for asylum, they have come to this country because they are fleeing torture. For those who are economic migrants, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have something to say about organising the way in which we will deal with them in a more coherent way in the future. My hon. Friend should not mix up the two.

Nick Gibb: Can the Minister confirm that the Home Office has now abandoned proposals to introduce identity cards in this country, whether to deal with this or any other issue?

Angela Eagle: No, I cannot.

Crime Reduction (Young People)

Vernon Coaker: What assessment he has made of the connection between crime reduction and the provision of leisure, recreation and sporting facilities for young people.

Beverley Hughes: We believe that the provision of facilities and activities for young people can help to reduce crime. That is why the Government have supported a number of programmes, such as the Youth Justice Board-managed youth inclusion and summer splash schemes. These provide structured activity programmes not only to occupy young people but to provide a vehicle for working with them to prevent them from drifting into crime or other antisocial activity.

Vernon Coaker: Notwithstanding the need to continue to crack down on those young people who cause problems in our communities, is it not the case that our young people far too often say that they simply have nothing to do, that they cannot find a place just to go and have a cup of coffee and that there is a lack of recreational facilities? Notwithstanding the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister has just given, will she have another look at the facilities available to our young people so that they can get more of those facilities to help them as they grow up?

Beverley Hughes: The evidence from the youth inclusion programme—particularly the summer splash schemes, which have been independently evaluated—shows that these kinds of activities are not only useful but cost-effective. The splash schemes show a 36 per cent. reduction in domestic burglary, and an 18 per cent. reduction in youth crime, on the estates where they took place. They are also important because they enable the police and other workers in the youth justice system to work directly, in a non-confrontational way, with young people, to develop relationships that are important in deterring young people from committing crime. These schemes have been successful and we are going to continue them.

Humfrey Malins: Given that a young man with plenty of purposeful activity and plenty of useful things to do—be they sporting, recreational or educational—is less likely to turn or return to crime, how does the Minister expect young men aged 18 to 21, released from the B wing of Feltham young offenders institution, to lead a good life when, for the past four years under the Labour Government they have been denied all those facilities, having been locked up in their cells for most of the day under a regime described by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons as "utterly disgraceful"?

Beverley Hughes: I do not know how recently or how frequently the hon. Gentleman has visited Feltham. If he has visited it, he will know that the problems there started long before this Government came to office. The problems that we inherited at Feltham were the product of long-term neglect by the Tory Government. If the hon. Gentleman has been there recently, he will have seen that the regime is being transformed, initially for the under-18s, and now for the 18 to 21s—not before time,I grant him, but it is this Government who have done it, not the Tory Government.

Andy Reed: Will the Minister join me and the representatives of professional sports clubs whom I met on Friday in recognising that, while there is a need and a great desire to increase the level of participation in sport in this country, one of the problems the clubs have is the number of initiatives placed in front of them? Is it possible for the Home Office to work with others across government to ensure that, rather than professional and amateur sports clubs having to fill in a plethora of application forms to chase pockets of money, a more co-ordinated approach could be taken? Many professional sports clubs offer tens of thousands of opportunities across the east midlands already. They would like to offer more, but need assistance to deliver them.

Beverley Hughes: I take my hon. Friend's point. It is sometimes difficult for sporting and other voluntary organisations to navigate the procedures that we rightly require them to go through when they try to access public money. Through Sport England, we are working directly with an initiative called "positive futures", as well as other bodies, and I hope that that enables the sporting bodies in particular to access the information that they need to make successful bids more easily. That is certainly our intention.

Police Numbers (Essex)

Bob Spink: What recent discussions he has had with Essex police about police numbers in Essex.

John Denham: I am told by the chief constable that, in September, Essex police had 2,953 officers, which is 66 more than in March, and 1,582 civilian staff, which is 135 more than in March. The crime fighting fund is delivering more police officers to Essex police and information supplied by the force shows that Essex expects to take on 247 new recruits in 2001-02.

Bob Spink: Does the Minister accept that Essex police numbers are far lower than when I was previously an Essex MP and does he consider that to be deplorable? Does he accept that that figure is one factor that is driving down police morale in Essex, as elsewhere in the country where morale is at an all-time low? Does he agree that it is an unprecedented insult for the Government to refuse to grant the police the golden jubilee medal? I call on him to review his policy and grant that medal.

John Denham: We are on course for a record, highest-ever number of police officers in England and Wales, and Essex, like other forces, is benefiting—[Hon. Members: "When?"] In the lifetime of this Parliament. [Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but it is good news that there will be more police officers than ever before in England and Wales. That is being achieved by this Government, and the figure will exceed any previous level. I do not accept that morale is low. Wastage from the police service is low.
	On the question of the jubilee medal, a decision was announced earlier this year that members of the armed forces only would receive it, but representations have been made from various parts of the police service and we are reviewing the position.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the problem is not the welcome resources that he has described, but the chief constable's priorities and the way in which he distributes those resources? I represent some of the poorest areas in Essex and we are simply not getting our share of the cake. Bearing in mind that those are operational decisions of the chief constable, can my right hon. Friend have a word with him about setting the right priorities? We are talking about redistributing resources in favour of the most disadvantaged people who suffer the most crime and are least protected and supported by other mechanisms such as insurance. There is a real problem in Essex. It is not of my right hon. Friend's making, but those scarce resources must be redistributed.

John Denham: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the deployment of officers is a matter for chief constables, but we intend to ensure that we drive up standards in the police service across England and Wales by identifying best practice and the ways in which forces are achieving it. The new standards unit that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced and the inspections of basic command units that are now taking place will enable us to identify any areas in which the service is not up to the standard that my hon. Friend would expect and will allow measures to be taken to tackle that.

James Paice: Police in Essex will be interested to know that, by the end of this Parliament, there will be more officers than ever before, but they are fully aware that there are 1,600 fewer nationally than when the Government took office. They would be delighted to know when we shall get back to where we were when the Government started, let alone when that can be built on.
	Does the Minister agree that Essex police will not accept that it is satisfactory still to be reviewing the issue of the Queen's jubilee medal? There has been a widespread outcry from the police force in Essex and elsewhere and his Government are breaking the tradition of 120 years, because jubilee medals have always been granted not just to the armed forces but to the police. Will the right hon. Gentleman state categorically that the Government will reintroduce that linkage, recognise police officers as equivalent to members of the armed services and give them the jubilee medal next year, which they deserve?

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman should have the wit to adjust his question if it has already been answered earlier—but he ploughed on regardless and had nothing of any value to say to the House. I am proud of the fact that the Government have reversed the long-term trend of reducing police numbers that was established under the Conservative Government. Last year, police numbers increased by 1,349, the largest annual increase for well over a decade.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Paul Flynn: What proposals he has to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Bob Ainsworth: The Government keep the misuse of drugs legislation under continual review.

Paul Flynn: After 30 years of the harshest prohibition of drugs in Europe, this country has the worst drugs problem in the continent and the position continues to deteriorate. Other countries have reduced harm by policies of regulated, licensed decriminalisation.
	Will my hon. Friend kill the myth that the present conflict will reduce the flow of heroin into this country? Does he agree with the United Nations that the Taliban have replaced almost all of their drugs crops with wheat, and that 80 per cent. of the heroin produced in Afghanistan is now made by our partners in the Northern Alliance? When one source dries up another fills its place.

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend will know that the overwhelming majority of heroin coming into this country comes from Afghanistan. It does not come from the area controlled by the Northern Alliance: it comes from the entire area of Afghanistan. The cultivation ofthose crops increased considerably when the Taliban Government came to power. Despite the fact that they took the decision not to produce heroin, there are massive stockpiles in Afghanistan, and there is no discernible impact on the supply to this country of any temporary disruption of cultivation. Therefore one wonders what their motivation was for that policy.

Peter Viggers: Bearing in mind that more than half of our young people have experimented with drugs at some point, and that the police have responded by not enforcing the law in all its severity, is there not scope for a wide-ranging inquiry, perhaps on the lines of a royal commission?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has called for an adult debate, and has rightly emphasised the need to consider carefully all the implications of any change in our drugs law. The potential for increasing usage is one of the issues that would have to be picked up in that debate. It is a challenge for those who advocate legalisation—one to which they rarely rise.

Brian Iddon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the comments made at the conference of probation officers last week. In the light of those remarks, of what is happening in other countries throughout Europe and of the recommendations in Lady Runciman's report, and bearing in mind what the Metropolitan police are doing in Brixton, why are the Government so resistant to reconsidering the law regarding cannabis?

Bob Ainsworth: If my hon. Friend had listened to my previous answer, he would have heard me say that my right hon. Friend wants an adult debate. If he properly examines the policies in many other countries, he will discover that the apparent discrepancies are often not as wide as they are believed to be. In many countries there is a convergence that involves the disruption of the supply of drugs and measures—such as harm reduction and education—to try to tackle these issues.

Special Constables

Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the number of special constables available for duty in England and Wales.

David Blunkett: The number of serving specials was 12,738 at 31 March 2001. The Government are committed to increasing the special constabulary, and we are currently carefully considering improvements in support services and the recruitment and retention of specials.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his answer. As he will know from the response to Question 6, there are more than 1,600 fewer police officers than there were in 1997—but is it not also the case that there are 7,136 fewer special constables now than there were then? Does he recall the Prime Minister's pledge to put
	"thousands more police officers on the beat"?
	That clearly has not happened. Is not the pledge—like all pledges given by the Prime Minister on matters domestic—just a load of hot air?

David Blunkett: There is no hot air in the commitment that we have given to raise 130,000 full-time equivalent officers over the next two years. By next summer, we will have a record number of officers, and we will complement that with a recruitment and retention drive for specials. That will form part of our development of the role of the community and of active citizenship in tackling crime and disorder and, in particular, antisocial behaviour.
	Yes, I am aware of the figures relating to specials. They were given to me, specially and privately, by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), then the main Conservative party spokesman, at the last Home Office Question Time just before the summer recess.

Bill O'Brien: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the increase in the number of special constables. Does he agree that it would be a great advantage if specially trained special constables worked with community groups on such issues as antisocial behaviour orders and matters dealt with by Crimewatch groups? Might that not help to reduce crime and bring some satisfaction to our communities?

David Blunkett: I entirely agree. That would be an excellent way not just to mobilise the community to tackle crime and disorder, but to ensure that members of the community constitute an in-depth part of the solution and can reach out, having been trained, authorised and regulated by the police service. It would also be an excellent way of using the time and talent of people who may have retired early, and of making the community feel that it is indeed part of the solution. We are currently having constructive dialogue about resources, and I hope that we shall be able to recruit a large number of specials who will fulfil exactly the role that my hon. Friend has outlined.

Simon Hughes: I know how much specials are appreciated throughout the country, just as full-time officers are. At times of increased tension such as this, the more visible policing that can be provided through the use of both specials and regular officers is hugely appreciated, not least in areas where there could be a threat to minority communities, or where there are very mixed communities.
	How does the Home Secretary plan to respond to the suggestion by police authorities and chief constables that extra policing requires additional resources from the Government? Given that the extra cost of policing in the Metropolitan police area is estimated to be £1 million a week, what will the Government do for this year's budget? How will they ensure that we continue to recruit both full-time and special constables in greater numbers, and are able to pay for them?

David Blunkett: I, too, have read the figures that keep emerging from either the Metropolitan police or the Metropolitan Police Authority showing how much costs are escalating. I would never wish to intervene in the operational freedom of a chief constable or commissioner, but we must retain some sort of balance in what is spent by the Metropolitan police and the 43 authorities across England and Wales.
	I am discussing with colleagues the amount that can be allocated not just to police forces but to security generally, including provision for civil contingencies. We will ensure that resources are made available both to do that job and to ensure that alternatives, such as specials or their equivalent, are available. That will enable us better to provide facilities as well as guaranteeing the safety and security of people in their own homes and streets, which remain an absolute priority.

Double Jeopardy

Stephen Ladyman: What plans he has to change the law in respect of double jeopardy.

Keith Bradley: The Government's manifesto includes a commitment to reform the double jeopardy rule in cases involving murder, and the Government will do so when parliamentary time allows.
	In the meantime, we will be giving careful consideration to Sir Robin Auld's recent recommendation that the reform should apply to a wider range of offences.

Stephen Ladyman: I know that my right hon. Friend is very anxious to take the House with him in this matter. Does he agree that the provision of information is vital if he is to do so? Yet when I asked how many cases the change in the law is likely to lead to, I was told that the number is not known because the police do not investigate after an acquittal. When I asked how many cases per year fall within the sentencing category, how many lead to convictions and how many of those convictions are overturned on appeal, I was told that the answer was available only at disproportionate cost. Before we overturn a rule that has served us well for 900 years, will my right hon. Friend make sure that that information is made available to the House?

Keith Bradley: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's careful consideration of this matter. He has partly answered his own question about the likely number of cases. The information is not available because the police do not generally seek fresh evidence against someone who has been acquitted of an offence. However, in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Director of Public Prosecutions suggested that there might be a handful of cases involving murder each year.

Norman Baker: Does the Minister realise that the proposed change in the law is very controversial? Will he give an undertaking that if the Government are determined to make the change, it will be limited to murder cases? In the event of a second trial, what criteria will be applied to ensure that individuals do not have the threat of an infinite number of trials hanging over them?

Keith Bradley: As I said, we are carefully considering the views of Sir Robin Auld, and those of the Law Commission, on whether double jeopardy reform should be extended. We are consulting on those proposals at the moment and we will make our views known in due course.
	The Law Commission has said that if a second trial is to proceed, there must be compelling new evidence of guilt and the court must be satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to quash the acquittal. We will be considering the Law Commission's views as part of our consultation before final proposals are introduced in legislation.

Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)

Gareth Thomas: What further action he is taking to increase recruitment into the Metropolitan police.

John Denham: Recruitment to the Metropolitan police has been aided by the crime fighting fund, by the national recruitment campaign, by the provision of free rail travel within a 70-mile radius of London and by the increase last year in London allowance for post-Sheehy officers.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the particular challenge in recruitment to the Met in attractive, highly desirable, outer-London suburbs such as Harrow is the high cost of property, especially for first-time buyers? Is he aware also that that issue is beginning to affect the retention of officers after two or three years service, when they may be attracted by cheaper property prices in other police force areas? Will he keep under close review the question of whether further investment in key worker housing is necessary both to retain police officers and to help with recruitment in suburbs such as my own?

John Denham: My hon. Friend makes very good points. We are certainly keen to understand and respond to all the reasons for police officers leaving the force early. Wastage of officers remains very low, but we do not want to lose a single officer unnecessarily. On housing, I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the Government's initiative to enable 550 London police officers to buy first homes with financial assistance over the next three years.

John Horam: Will the review of the resource allocation formula used by the Metropolitan police lead to an increase in police numbers in outer-London boroughs such as Harrow and Bromley?

John Denham: Consultation is taking place on a new formula for the allocation of police officers in London boroughs, which was suggested by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. As that consultation is still under way, it is too early to be certain about what the final allocation will be.

Bridget Prentice: While I welcome the initiatives that have been taken to increase Metropolitan police recruitment, police have been moved from the boroughs to central London because of the higher security levels, leaving those boroughs under- resourced. Are there any specific initiatives to address that issue?

John Denham: Everyone welcomes and acknowledges the reassurance role that the Metropolitan police service has been playing since 11 September, and I think that that reassurance has had a significant impact on the sense of public security. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is very clearly aware of the need to ensure that effective normal policing arrangements are in place during this time.

Metropolitan Police Training School

Angela Watkinson: What the maximum capacity of the Metropolitan police training school was in each of the last three years; and what percentage of trainees completed the course successfully in each of those years.

Beverley Hughes: I understand from the commissioner that the capacity of the Metropolitan police service training school for 2001–02 is 2,600. No maximum capacity was set in previous years. The percentage of recruits successfully completing training for each of the past three years is 92 per cent. in 1999; 93 per cent. in 2000; and 94 per cent. in 2001.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Lady for that reply. Will she please comment on the likely impact of the drop-out rate on the ability to reach the targets for increased police numbers, particularly in that other attractive outer-London constituency of Upminster, which suffers very badly from the leeching of resources into inner London?

Beverley Hughes: The commissioner fully expects to recruit up to 2,500 police officers this year. That number will both cover wastage and enable, by March 2002, an increase in strength of more than 1,000 officers, helping to reach the total target of 26,650 officers. The commissioner therefore expects that that number will more than meet demand.

Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme

Colin Challen: If he will make a statement on the intensive supervision and surveillance programme.

Beverley Hughes: The intensive supervision and surveillance programme is a Youth Justice Board initiative funded by the Home Office. It is targeted at the 3 per cent. of young people who are responsible for about 25 per cent. of juvenile offences, providing the courts with a robust community-based alternative to custodial sentences and remands.

Colin Challen: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that my colleagues and I in Leeds are holding an inquiry into drug abuse in Leeds, and that one of the issues that has already been raised is the fact that the families, and especially the parents, of drug users experience great stress, particularly when their offspring go to prison? We therefore truly welcome the type of initiative that she has outlined.

Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. The initiative is very important for the reasons that he has identified. The programme has two elements—intensive monitoring by electronic tagging or voice verification and very highly structured individual programmes with intense supervision and surveillance. It is a very robust alternative to custody. I hope that the initiative will prove as successful nationally as the Rotherham pilot showed it to be locally, not only in keeping young serious offenders out of custody but in substantially reducing their offending.

Prison Reform

Derek Wyatt: If he will make a statement on his priorities for tackling prison reform.

Beverley Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this question. We do not often get a question on prison reform at Home Office questions, yet it is an issue that hon. Members need to take more seriously.
	Our priorities are maintaining the impressive improvement in the record on escapes and doing much more to reduce the rates of reoffending of prisoners and so protect the public. That means continuing to improve the quality and quantity of literacy and numeracy education, tackling levels of drug abuse and delivering more intensive programmes on reducing offending, while treating prisoners with decency.

Derek Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Perhaps it is because I have three prisons in my constituency that I have more than the average interest. We have had three bad cases involving paedophiles. One was exceptionally awful, in which a paedophile sentenced to a four-year term in prison was given 18 months off for remission, having received no education or psychiatric care. He returned to the community almost the same as he was when he left. Will my hon. Friend give such cases renewed thought? I look forward to changes in the way in which paedophiles are treated in prison.

Beverley Hughes: Alongside the provision of more offending behaviour programmes in prison, the Prison Service has a target to deliver a substantial number of sex offender treatment programmes. That is linked to a more co-ordinated strategy in terms of multi-agency protection panels and continuing work with sex offenders in the community when they are released from prison. This is an important priority. We must ensure that when offenders leave prison, they are as well equipped as possible to ensure that they do not reoffend. For sex offenders, that is a particularly important part of our public protection strategy.

Crispin Blunt: How can the Minister and the Prison Service be taken seriously on prison reform when Downview prison was re-roled from a category C/category D prison—it had a splendid scheme, RAPT, for dealing with drug offenders—to a women's prison, with just five weeks notice? The offenders being treated on all the programmes to which the Minister has referred were scattered to the four winds throughout the Prison Service, thereby losing the benefits of all those programmes.

Beverley Hughes: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the need to re-role Downview, and he has spoken to me about this. One of the fundamental responsibilities of the Prison Service is to respond to the summation of decisions of the courts. The number of women being sent to prison on sentence and on remand is increasing rapidly—much more rapidly than the general rise in the prison population. The Prison Service must respond to that. Were the numbers of women sent to prison to stabilise or reduce, I, for one, would be glad. We must respond to the decisions of the courts, and we had to re-role a prison to take the 4,000 women who are now sent to prison by the courts.

David Kidney: Should not the priorities be the safety of prison staff and, among prisoners, the eradication of drug dependency, as well as improved education? On the last point, is my hon. Friend shocked by the high levels of illiteracy in our prisons? Should not those levels be eradicated first?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, I am shocked. It is important for hon. Members and the general public to appreciate that those whom the Prison Service receives are, on a range of indicators, some of the most socially excluded and disadvantaged people. That is not to excuse their offending, but to try to show that the problems with which the Prison Service has to deal are multiple and serious. Levels of drug-related offending are high, but the Prison Service is making massive strides in trying to help prisoners to make up some of their deficits. The number of literacy and numeracy qualifications now awarded at basic level 2—the lowest level for employability—is considerable. The focus on rehabilitation and resettlement is something that we want to continue.

Jenny Tonge: What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the increasing number of women prisoners can keep in touch with their children during their sentence?

Beverley Hughes: There has been a worrying reduction in the number of visits received by prisoners over the past couple of years, and I am watching that closely. In particular, I am considering a pilot scheme in one region, in conjunction with a major voluntary organisation, to see whether we can provide better facilities in prison and, more importantly, make the links with agencies in the community, so that prisoners' family contact, especially with children, can be maintained. The hon. Lady is right to say that that is an important factor in the effective resettlement of prisoners, and maintaining links with family is an important priority for us.

BSE in Sheep (Research)

Margaret Beckett: I begin by apologising most sincerely to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and his team. I know that he can barely have had the statement for more than a few moments, and I can tell him now that he will find it shorter than the text that he has in his hand, but he has been given some acquaintance with what I propose to say, through a letter that I sent to him at the end of last week. None the less, I sincerely apologise and assure him that on future occasions I would hope to give him much more notice of any statement that I need to make.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to put hon. Members in the picture about research into scrapie and the theoretical possibility that it might mask BSE in sheep. The work is being undertaken through a variety of different research projects at different institutes of excellence. I want also to address the significance of the experiment undertaken at the Institute for Animal Health on the so-called 1990 scrapie brain pool, which was due to be reported to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee last Friday.
	The United Kingdom and, indeed, my Department are at the forefront of European research into understanding the incidence of scrapie in the national sheep flock and whether the theoretical risk of BSE in sheep is a real one. The IAH research is merely one of a number of projects. There are many who consider that those on more recent brains are more important, and so far BSE has not been found, but more work needs to be done, and that is why, a couple of weeks ago, we took steps to ensure that more brains are offered for testing. It is important, however, to keep the issue in its proper perspective.
	We have known since the experiments began that there were some doubts about whether the brains, which were collected a long time ago for a completely different experiment, were cross-contaminated with bovine BSE material. As results began to emerge from the experiments, it became critical that we resolve the issue of cross-contamination with as much clarity as possible.
	That is why my Department, in consultation with SEAC and others, commissioned the DNA testing work at the laboratory of the Government chemist. The results were presented to DEFRA by the LGC last Wednesday afternoon, 17 October. The finding that there was no sheep material in the sample sent to the DNA lab was a totally unforeseen development.
	The Government's responsibility in these circumstances is twofold: first, we must establish the facts as quickly as possible; and secondly, we must share those emerging findings with the public. The most obvious question that sprang to mind was whether the material analysed by the LGC was actually the same as that used in the experiments: to put it rather brutally, would the sample that should have been sent to the LGC be discovered at the back of the fridge in some dark corner of the Institute for Animal Health? We needed to establish the facts.
	I immediately asked for an independent risk assessment company to perform a detailed audit of the IAH experiment, including an examination of how the homogenised samples were stored and handled. As the company is already familiar with the IAH project, it aims to report its findings within a week or so, and I hope that it will be able to do so.
	We have also asked the UK Accreditation Service—UKAS—to undertake to a longer time scale a vigorous assessment of the chain of custody arrangements for the IAH experiment. Only at around 6 pm on Wednesday did we receive information suggesting that the sample sent to the DNA lab was indeed thought to be representative of the brain pool—but we still do not know this for certain. We will not know the full facts until the audit team has reported.
	Let me emphasise that at that stage the only question was not whether we should make this public, but how and when. It was already clear that the SEAC meeting—[Laughter.] This is a serious issue, of grave concern for public health—[Interruption.] I am talking about the underlying disease; how the issue has been used is another matter.
	It was already clear that the SEAC meeting planned for Friday could not now take place, as this was the only item on the agenda, and the chairman took the decision to cancel it.
	I took the decision, against the advice of my press office, that rather than wait to have a properly staged press briefing the following morning, we should make a statement as soon as possible about what we knew for certain. I will tell the House bluntly that I was convinced the information would leak, and I did not want the slightest hint of any cover-up. In fact, I looked unsuccessfully for the Chair of the Select Committee that evening, in order to update him and correct information I had given him, in good faith, earlier that day.
	A press notice was duly sent to the Press Association after we had observed the ordinary courtesies of consulting those involved and those who might be asked to comment on it, including SEAC and the Food Standards Agency. In other words, a statement was made the same day and within a few hours of Ministers being told what was thought to have occurred.
	Let me say one other thing about the suggestion that we were seeking to suppress the information. We are all mature politicians, and I invite the House to consider what I was supposed to need to suppress. The research was commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; it was not carried out by that Department. The cross-check that revealed the problems was also commissioned by my Department, as a "belt and braces" measure. Of course there was embarrassment and dismay among those involved with this work, but there was no embarrassment or dismay for the Government, only a very real concern as to where we would go from here, and a real anxiety to treat carefully and seriously an issue of enormous sensitivity.
	I understand that the phraseology of one part of the press release—which, by the way, I wrote—is thought to have been obscure. At the time it was drafted, we knew the results of the cross-contamination check, and had been told it was thought that it came from the same material as that used in the experiment, but I could not feel confident about what weight I should give to this piece of advice, given the very short time for checks to be made.
	This entire issue rests on the handling of samples and the keeping of records. In consequence it seemed to me right to say, as we did, simply that the validity of the sample had been called into question. There was, and is, absolutely no intention to conceal or mislead. A press pack, which gave all the information to any of the media that were interested, was issued at a separate press conference held the following day.
	What is more important is what this experiment could mean or could have meant. It will not give us a definitive answer as to whether BSE is in sheep today. Indeed, there are scientists who are not yet convinced that it would even have told us whether BSE was present in sheep in the early 1990s. All that the work could have done was reduce some of the uncertainties and add to the little that we currently know.
	On scrapie generally, my Department is working closely with the FSA to introduce, early next year, an abattoir survey to test for scrapie approximately 20,000 sheep aged over 18 months annually. This will cost the UK about £5 million and be part of an EU-wide programme designed to give information on the incidence of scrapie in the European Union. This week the Agriculture Council in Brussels will review that programme, which, for both cattle and sheep testing, will cost the UK more than £50 million next year.
	Although we hope that the sheep abattoir survey will be useful, I must warn the House that its results may not prove conclusive. A similar survey commissioned by the Government two to three years ago on nearly 3,000 abattoir sheep brains identified no scrapie cases at all. I would certainly be prepared to examine carefully the case for doing an even larger survey.
	Around 500 to 600 scrapie cases are reported annually in Great Britain each year. My Department is funding a great deal of work to look for BSE in those cases, but it is difficult work at the forefront of science, and scientists do not always agree on particular aspects or methods. In about 180 cases, using the same techniques used at the Institute for Animal Health but on brains from the current flock, the experiments have reached the first point at which, if any of those scrapie cases were BSE, that might have become evident. It has not done so. However, it is too soon to draw firm conclusions from those on-going experiments that can last several years.
	I must emphasise again that all that work is at the very forefront of science, conducted at the leading edge of scientific experimentation. We are not talking about research that can give us simple yes and no answers. I have asked for the most thorough review of the range of scientific studies presently being undertaken into that complex and difficult area, and once it is available I will make it available to the House.
	The national scrapie plan is a long-term, voluntary programme to breed genetic resistance to scrapie and to BSE into the national sheep flock. Over the summer, my Department has prepared a Bill which, among other things, would allow the Government to take powers to ensure that we can remove from the flock the genotypes of sheep susceptible to scrapie. Of course the House will wish to give the Bill, including that section, proper scrutiny and I hope that it will have an opportunity to do so in the near future.
	Throughout—I speak of the period before I had responsibility for the Department as well as now—we have been open and transparent on all our research into BSE, which is overseen by the independent Food Standards Agency and our advisory committee, SEAC. I stress that the FSA's advice remains unchanged. That advice, from the independent body responsible for food safety, is that there is no reason why consumers should not eat sheepmeat. We will continue actively to promote research to reduce risk, theoretical or not, and to put all our research in the public domain.

Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State will know that I wrote to her yesterday requesting an urgent statement on the failure of the tests. I am grateful to her for coming to the House this afternoon, even though it is clear that she should have made a statement last week and that all we have been treated to is a staggering display of complacency. There was not a word of regret, never a "sorry" from the Secretary of State, whose handling of the issue has been appalling. The day that this Government express embarrassment or dismay for any of their incompetencies or their ruthless approach to news management will be a red letter day indeed.
	No responsible person will believe that the decision to announce the failure of the test by means of a press release at 10.30 at night on a website, the failure to inform specialist journalists and the failure to hold to a press conference were anything other than a concerted attempt to—in Jo Moore's shameful phrase—"bury" another embarrassing story from a Department that is becoming famous for its gaffes and incompetence. Last week I called for the individual responsible for the decision about the press release to be sacked. It now transpires that that person was none other than the Secretary of State herself. I doubt that she will sack herself—unfortunately—but perhaps she will answer a few questions.
	At the weekend, the Secretary of State appeared to admit that her decision to slip out the press release at the dead of night was wrong. Why then did she not take the opportunity to put things right on Thursday when she had the chance? Why, instead and at very short notice, did she make a statement on Lord Haskins's disappointing report on foot and mouth? What does that tell us about the Government's priorities?
	On Thursday, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, in the now time-honoured mantra:
	"In all matters relating to BSE and animal health, the Government have been open and transparent."—-[Official Report, 8 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1293.]
	The Secretary of State repeated the same nonsense just now—for open read "opaque" and for transparent read "evasive".
	The Phillips report on BSE maintains that the possibility that it might have been transmitted to sheep is
	"perhaps the most important unanswered question about the BSE epidemic."
	Does the Secretary of State agree with that, and if so why has she given this issue so little priority? How is it possible that for four years Government scientists have been trying to establish whether BSE was present in sheep in the 1990s by investigating cows' brains? It beggars belief. Why did the late-night press release not come clean about what had happened? It simply said that cross- checking had
	"raised doubts about the validity of the original sample."
	Why did it not state the case—that the whole experiment had been a fiasco? How much money has been wasted on this experiment over the years?
	Will the right hon. Lady confirm that Professor Bostock contacted the Veterinary Laboratories Agency nearly a year ago to express his concerns about the samples? Were Ministers advised about those concerns at the time? If so, when were they advised? If they did not know, why not? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that scientists told her Department early last summer that the material they were testing for BSE appeared to contain traces of bovine remains? If that is so, why did it take her two further months before she ordered DNA checks to be made? If Ministers were unsure of the validity of the experiments—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is wittering on, but I am coming on to his role in this affair. If Ministers were unsure of the validity of the experience, why did the Under-Secretary announce on 28 September that all Britain's 40 million sheep might have to be culled? Was that a responsible thing to say at a time when Britain's farmers were already facing a meltdown over foot and mouth?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that Professor Collinge, a member of SEAC, has been calling since 1997 for the use of a new testing system which, instead of taking years to identify BSE, takes just two days? Will she now insist on the use of this technology?
	I note what the Secretary of State said about the safety of lamb products. However, is she aware that when the chairman of the FSA was recently asked about the safety of lamb in baby food, he replied that he was assured by manufacturers that they only used lamb from New Zealand? Will she confirm that British babies will be perfectly safe eating British lamb?
	This whole episode is a humiliating embarrassment for the right hon. Lady's Department. We are quite used to those—they hardly matter any more. More important, however, it raises major questions about the Government's handling of bad news and, more important still, represents a massive setback to the credibility of Government scientific agencies and to the vital job of restoring confidence in our food. Who does the Minister hold responsible for this fiasco? What action will she take to ensure that those who are found to be responsible are never allowed near food safety and public health again?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear by that rant that whoever is a responsible person in this matter, he is not one. I have seldom heard anything so dangerously irresponsible as his remarks.
	First, the hon. Gentleman referred to the notice appearing at 10.30 pm on the website. He knows perfectly well that the notice was issued through the PA a great deal earlier in the evening because I wrote to him and gave him the details days ago. Secondly, he asked about the failure to inform the press and to hold a press conference. I have already made it plain that we issued a press notice that evening and that we held a separate press conference on the Haskins report on which, as he rightly said, I reported to the House. At that press conference, information packs were made available and I understand that this issue and the contents of the packs were drawn to the attention of the specialist journalists who might have had a particular interest in this case, so information was made available to the press.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about my appearing to say that we had handled this wrongly. I actually said that with the benefit of hindsight, if there was an error it might perhaps have been in deciding to issue the press release straight away. I will be quite honest and say that I do not believe that that was an error. I also believe that if we had not put out a press release that evening, as soon as we had cleared what we could then find out of the facts and put them into the public domain, the hon. Gentleman would be screaming even more loudly that we had never intended to make a press statement at all.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Collinge testing system. Yes, there has been considerable discussion about that. He will be aware that it is not a test that other people have found easy to replicate, but a great deal of other work is going on. Indeed, at present the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which comprises Government scientists, has been conducting some tests using a similar technique. That work has not yet been formally reported, however; nor—this is more important—has it been peer reviewed. Work is going on to try to identify better and faster methods of getting some of these results—there we are on common ground—and it will of course be reported fully to the House in the proper way.
	I do not have up-to-date figures, but from memory, a sum in the order of £200,000 was spent on the research in question. What comes through most clearly in the hon. Gentleman's approach to this matter today, and indeed in some of the press publicity over the weekend, is that although the hon. Gentleman asks me what the matter tells us of the Government's priorities, what it tells us of the Opposition's priorities is clear. The hon. Gentleman was at pains to try to make the case that the Government themselves are in some way at fault, even to the extent of talking about Government scientists. The Institute for Animal Health is not a body of Government scientists; it is an independent body, from which my Department commissioned the research.
	What happened during the course of the past few days is clear to me. On Wednesday afternoon, we were told very disturbing news which cast grave doubts on the validity of that research. We put that into the public domain as early as we could—within hours that same evening—and followed it up by issuing a press pack to those whom we thought might be particularly interested. We were perfectly happy to answer questions from anyone who asked them. We were not altogether surprised that there was not much follow-up because inconclusive experiments are not usually very interesting to the press.
	What then happened—about two days later—was that the Opposition decided to pretend that this was in some way an attempt to conceal the facts. It was the Opposition who blew this up out of all proportion, as a supposed Government cover-up—[Interruption.] It is the Opposition who have since sought to exploit the matter to make it as big a story as possible and to cast doubt in the public's mind about the safety of eating sheepmeat, the safety of experiments and the confidence the public can place in any of the scientific work on BSE. That is why I call what the hon. Gentleman said dangerously irresponsible.
	None of these experiments will give us clear and conclusive answers: all we are ever going to have are experimental results that narrow down the range of uncertainty bit by bit. The hon. Gentleman has done neither sheep farmers nor the British public any service whatever by his disgraceful attempt to pretend that this is anything other than—yes—a series of grave errors that cause grave concern, but I see nothing—[Interruption.] To speak to the hon. Gentleman directly, as he is heckling me: what is it for which I am supposed to apologise?

Tam Dalyell: May I ask a very obvious question? Although hindsight is a marvellous thing to have, why on earth was not normal laboratory practice followed and identification of the material confirmed when it came to the laboratory, especially as it had been taken out of some fridge of doubtful provenance? Why was not normal laboratory practice followed?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is a very pertinent question. Further tests have been conducted. Tests were conducted when this experiment began, and from time to time down the years further tests have been conducted. It is far from clear why the results of the tests that were conducted then and the results of the tests conducted at the laboratory of the Government chemist the other day are so disparate. That is precisely the issue that the independent scientific audit will have to address. I know that my hon. Friend will understand precisely why I said that there is a great deal of confusion in the information presently available to the Government.

Malcolm Bruce: Is the Secretary of State aware that when I was in Brussels last Wednesday, officials from both the Commission and the European Parliament told me that they expected research to be published in the next 24 hours which would confirm that BSE was present in the British sheep flock? Surely, the issue that she needs to address is how we got so close to an announcement that would have had disastrous consequences for our industry, why the error was not discovered earlier and why, indeed, it was possible, over a period of months, for doubts to have been expressed but not, apparently, addressed?
	The Secretary of State said, correctly, that the IAH is not the Department but a client of the Department. However, can she say whether the Department was in any way involved in supplying the relevant material or what it did to supervise that? How can she ensure that when the Department commissions research in future, it can satisfy itself that the people carrying it out can be trusted to do so properly, professionally and competently? Does she not acknowledge that there is a great deal of concern that, as MAFF's successor, her Department still suffers from low morale and motivation as well as, in many cases, a poor calibre of decision making and management? If that is the case, does she not recognise that she has a responsibility to put things right so that we can have confidence that the Department is capable of commissioning research that will deliver results? We must recognise and welcome the fact that there is no such evidence in the British sheep flock, but what will she do to ensure that any research now conducted does not raise any further doubts?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right in that we have been in touch with the European Commission which, like us, was expecting the results of the work on Friday. However, he is wrong about what those results might have shown: even if they had been clearer and more conclusive, they would have told us, at maximum, what scientists believe is the risk of there having been BSE in the sheep flock in the 1990s. Brains from the current flock were not being tested.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the supervision of the collection of the sample and so on. At the moment, I do not know who supervised the collection of material but, as I said in my statement, it was collected for a completely different purpose. Cow brain was collected in the 1990s under the supervision of the Conservative Government to test the effect of rendering on BSE prions; sheep brain was collected to test the effect of rendering on the clinical signs of scrapie. All the material was kept at the IAH and, as far as I am aware, was not in the custody of my Department; I am not aware of any role that we had in supervising its custody. It was thought that there would be merit in conducting experiments on brain material collected in the 1990s, but clearly a limited amount of such material was still available, which is why it was decided to take the risk of using material collected under different circumstances and for a different purpose.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about doubts that had been expressed. There were questions and doubts down the years because there must always be some scientific dubiety when material is collected under different circumstances and for a different reason. Moreover, I understand that when people became concerned about cross-contamination, it was felt that the material might have been worked on on benches on which cow brain had also been worked on. We were therefore talking about the possibility of contamination occurring during experimental work and research rather than a mixing of the material itself. I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House in all seriousness that there are important issues to be addressed, so it is essential that we have the independent scientific audit and do not speculate about what happened.

Jack Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she is right not to be deflected by the incoherent ramblings of the party that caused all those problems in the first place and left the nation with that appalling legacy? Will she confirm that the independent and, I hope, rigorous audit of the work will go wide enough to include an audit of all similar or related work in that area being carried out for the Department and the Government? If it is the case that there was a failure to provide the proper tissues for research, we need to know that similar failures have not occurred in other research carried out in the IAH or other institutions. So will my right hon. Friend ensure that all the work that is going on in this important, sensitive and difficult area is properly and independently—[Interruption.]—rigorously assessed before any further decisions are taken?

Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend is entirely right, and I share his views. He will know that I have already demanded an independent audit. I have also demanded a thorough review of all the work that is being undertaken, and I am asking for people to consider whether there is yet further research that we ought to undertake. It is important that all that is done. I noticed that Opposition Members were emphasising the need for independent scrutiny. That is a view which I share. I again remind them that the reason that we know about the problems with the experiment is that my Department commissioned an independent check to find out whether there was, in fact, a problem.

David Curry: But we have had an extremely close call. It is just possible that we could have been here today listening to a statement about measures taken to protect the public from eating lamb. As the Secretary of State knows, the farming community has an apocalyptic view that that could extend to the slaughter of the entire flock. It would be helpful if we had the parameters of a response if that were discovered. If the work is being done at more than one institute—the experiment was only part of the work—is it possible that we still may be able to find out whether BSE was present, masked by scrapie, in the sheep flock in the 1990s? Is there other work, as the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, which may have led to policy announcements, although we now doubt the veracity of the research on which it was based? As public money is involved, can the Government have recourse to the institutes to recover it, given that it was spent in a futile cause in the exercise in question?

Margaret Beckett: No doubt that issue will have to be considered in the fulness of time. Of course I am aware of the grave anxieties in the farming community. That is why I regret that the episode has been hijacked for an entirely different political purpose. It is a matter of great concern. As far as I am aware—I will write to the right hon. Gentleman if I am wrong—there may not be much other work going on that will tell us about what happened in sheep brain in the 1990s because, by definition, only a limited amount of material is available. I am not aware that there is other work of that period. Most of the other work that is being undertaken is in many ways more pertinent to the anxieties of the public and of the farming community, as it is being undertaken on sheep that are in the food chain now.
	I know that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that up to the present time, which is all that we can say as we are dealing with uncertainties, none of that work has yet detected the presence of BSE in the national flock. We must hope that that continues to be the case, but that does not absolve any of us from our responsibility to do everything we can to make sure that we get further information and have it properly and rigorously assessed, and to do everything possible to try to eradicate scrapie and, with it, the risk of BSE.

Eric Martlew: When exactly in 1997 was the flawed research commissioned? Would my right hon. Friend welcome a full investigation of the matter by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend asks a very pertinent question. The research was commissioned in January 1997 under the Conservative Government.

George Osborne: Did the Secretary of State at any point discuss the handling of the release of the information with her special adviser?

Margaret Beckett: No, I did not. Both my special advisers happened to be away ill.

Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the EU Veterinary Standing Committee will soon be considering lifting the export ban on lamb and sheepmeat. What impact, if any, does she think that today's statement will have on its decision?

Margaret Beckett: All these issues must be taken carefully into account. I hope that there will be greater understanding by those who are considering these matters in the relative calm in which they make their decisions on the experiments and on what the questioning of them means.

Bill Wiggin: Farmers in my constituency now have no faith in the Department. If specialists have been examining cows' brains for the past four years, farmers would like to know why they did not find BSE.

Margaret Beckett: I do not want to prejudge what is said to be the outcome of the experiment that has been called into question. I believe that those who conducted it felt that there was some evidence that BSE might have been in the material that they were testing in the 1990s. I do not want to go further than that. The issue of the validity of the experiment, what it means and what it might mean is under question. In addition, these are matters that will have to be considered by SEAC. I am not sure whether farmers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be grateful to him for raising even more doubts.

David Drew: This is obviously a grave announcement. To what extent does my right hon. Friend think that the Phillips report, rather than helping us understand the cause and transmission of BSE, has made the case for understanding these matters that much more difficult? Will she take due account of that in future and ensure that investigations are reported more quickly, and perhaps pull together some of the scientific evidence in a more opportune manner?

Margaret Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point. One of the concerns about the work of the Phillips committee, without any discredit to the distinguished individuals who carried it out, was that it took so long. It was not easy for the members of it to draw together the scientific evidence in a way that made it clear. That is one of the reasons why the Government have chosen a different route for the inquiries that we have announced into foot and mouth disease.

Michael Jack: In March, the right hon. Lady's Department received memorandums from the Select Committee on work on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Dr. Dickson, formerly of the neuropathological unit in Edinburgh, contributed to it. He said:
	"It was a cause for amazement . . . when I heard that MAFF was funding attempts to search for particular strains in the UK sheep population by pooling the brains of sheep in batches."
	He added:
	"They will need considerable good luck with any such approach."
	With that critical comment, I ask the right hon. Lady when her Department first became aware of doubts about the scientific validity of this work. Who provided the source of the doubts? Is it true that the Department knew about them in September? If so, why is it that we have heard about it only now?

Margaret Beckett: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman—I regard him as usually a serious contributor to these issues—I do not think that he has listened to what has been said. The material was already pooled. Nobody drew together a brain pool to conduct the experiments. The material was in that form. As it was one of the small amounts of material available from the 1990s, it was decided to take the risk of using it for the experiment. It seems from what I know that from the beginning there has been something of a question mark over whether the research would show us much of great value. That is something that has always been in dispute. I do not have any names. My impression is that there are a number of scientist who have some reservations about the issue and the experiment. The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is ever thus: scientists do differ about the work of different experiments.

Michael Jack: When did the right hon. Lady know?

Margaret Beckett: The experiment was commissioned by the Conservative Government in January 1997. From the beginning there have been those who have had doubts about its validity.

Kevin Brennan: My right hon. Friend was quite right to make the information public as soon as it became available. It is no sin not to spin; that differs from the Conservative party's attitude to BSE.
	Is my right hon. Friend aware of the genuine public anxiety about the safety of feeding lamb to young children? Without resorting to feeding her grandchildren a lamb burger, unlike a former Conservative Minister, what can she say to parents about the safety of feeding British lamb to their children?

Margaret Beckett: Quite rightly and properly, food safety is in the hands of the independent Food Standards Agency, not least because of our experiences under the Conservative Government. No FSA advice states that baby food manufacturers should not use United Kingdom lamb or that lamb should not be consumed.
	I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks and simply observe what should be evident to anybody: although it may be inconvenient, life does not always correspond to media deadlines.

David Heath: We are considering a grave matter. In what form was the tissue in the 1990 scrapie brain pool kept: complete organs or histological specimens? Given the high economic and scientific stakes that were being played for in the experiment, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) pointed out, would not any contamination of samples with bovine tissue render the entire experiment pointless? What checks were built into the experimental protocols when the experiment was designed to ensure that the tissues were not contaminated and that the results were consequently valid?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asks, first, about the form of the material. I understand that it was pooled brains in the form of a paste. He also asked about checks and said that any trace of bovine material would invalidate the experiment. Several checks were made— I am not sure of the number, but I believe that it was three or four—over the lifetime of the four-year experiment.
	Although some people will undoubtedly share the hon. Gentleman's view that any trace of bovine material would call the results into question, those who conducted the experiment would not accept that. They believe that any minor contamination—one would have to consider their definition of minor—would not necessarily invalidate the results. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee was set up to discuss and evaluate exactly such an issue. It would undoubtedly have held such a discussion on Friday if my Department had not commissioned the cross-check.

David Cameron: Why cannot the right hon. Lady be clear about the issue and simply apologise? Is it not clear that scientists working for her Department have been experimenting on the brains of cows, not those of sheep, for the past four years? She says that she was trying to be transparent. If so, why does not the word "cow" appear in the press release? She could hardly bear to use it today; instead, she talked about "non-sheep material". Was not the press release opaque, unclear and thoroughly discreditable, and put out by an increasingly discredited Government?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asks why we cannot be clearer and simply apologise. I repeat that the Government are not conducting the research; the previous Conservative Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, commissioned it, and it continues under the present Government. He says that it is clear that the scientists have been working all the time on bovine material.

David Cameron: Say "cows".

Margaret Beckett: Cows, sheep—it is not clear that they have been working on material from cattle all the time. What has happened is not clear; the purpose of the independent scientific audit is to find out.
	The hon. Gentleman claims that "cow" does not appear in the press release, but "cattle" does. The press release states that the "cross-checking research" was
	"to guard against the possibility of material being contaminated by cattle brains"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must give the Secretary of State a chance to reply.

Margaret Beckett: The press release continues:
	"This cross-checking has raised doubts about the validity of the original sample."
	As I pointed out in my statement, that is because I am not confident that we can be sure that the material that was checked at the laboratory of the Government chemist was the same as that used in the experiments. Although the institute initially suggested on Wednesday afternoon that the material was the same, it has subsequently said that perhaps it was not.

Malcolm Savidge: Having, in recent months, seen a young woman gradually die from CJD, may I say that I found the knockabout, pantomime performance of the Opposition spokesman deeply distasteful? We should not allow this sad fiasco to distract us from our primary responsibility, which is to try to minimise CJD infection. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we shall try to ensure that rapid and reliable research will be carried out into the risk of BSE in our sheep flocks?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the gravity of this matter, which is why I very much regret the way in which it has been used. I have said that I will place in the Vote Office or the Library a list of what research is being undertaken, but obviously we shall need to reassess that. I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that this is what really matters.
	One of the things that I found most distressing about the events of the past few days was a report from the mother of a young vCJD victim, who talked about her daughter having still been alive in 1997, and who appeared to have been given the impression that the work that has been called into question would in some way have prevented her daughter's death, or in some way answered questions or solved these problems. That is why I went to such lengths to explain that, even if the experiment had been successful, it would tell us only a limited amount, and that there is a great deal that we still do not know. These are very grave issues indeed, and it is incumbent on us all to treat them with the seriousness that they deserve.

Gordon Prentice: The real issue is whether the results of other experiments have been compromised in the same way. It seems to me, a lay person, absolutely inexplicable that professional people should have mistaken cows' brains for sheep's brains. Will the Minister tell the House visually what the difference is between a cow's brain and a sheep's brain?

Margaret Beckett: I would certainly be cautious about doing so. I stress to my hon. Friend that the material on which this research was conducted was a paste. So far as I am aware—I hope that this will emerge in the information that I shall place before the House—all the experiments that are being conducted on sheep from the current flock, so to speak, are using individual brains. Therefore, the same kind of issues do not arise, although it is obviously still right for us to look at these questions and to try to answer them if we can.

James Paice: Does not the Secretary of State understand the immense damage that this has done to the scientific reputation of her Department and the advice that may emanate from it?

Elliot Morley: It was not her Department.

James Paice: The Minister says that it was not their Department. He and the Secretary of State are responsible for the advice that comes from that Department, so any accusation that those who wish to criticise the Secretary of State or her Department are in some way exploiting the tragedy of CJD is, frankly, contemptible. The reality is that the Department's scientific advice is listened to out in the country, and it is very worrying for millions of people, consumers and farmers, when they hear that an experiment has gone on for four years and that it was only at the last minute—beyond the eleventh hour—that the challenges that the Secretary of State rightly says have existed for four years were held perhaps to be right, suggesting that the trials might not be valid. Will the Secretary of State not even now say that she is sorry that this has happened and, rather than criticise the Opposition, accept that her Department's status and prestige in scientific matters now stand on a knife edge?

Margaret Beckett: No, I do not accept that, although the Opposition are doing their best to make that the case. I am not sure what makes them think that that will serve the public interest.
	The hon. Gentleman wondered why this conclusion had emerged only at the end of the experiment. Perhaps he has not taken on board the fact that it is the nature of this kind of experiment that the results to be assessed come only towards the end. Secondly, he spoke of the immense damage done to the reputation of my Department. May I repeat that this research was not conducted by my Department? It was commissioned by the previous Department under his Government, not under ours. I do not hold the Conservative party to blame—it was perfectly legitimate and correct to commission the research from an independent institute—but I am blowed if I see why we should take the blame for yet another of its errors.
	The hon. Gentleman says that the reputation of my Department has been damaged because the experiment went wrong, but I remind him that my Department also commissioned the experiment—the cross-checking—that showed the error. He says that this is a contemptible episode. I am sorry that he chooses to use that language, but, in that case, I tell him bluntly that what is utterly contemptible is the Opposition's attempt to hijack a serious issue to try to fabricate evidence of some supposed cover-up and spinning when information was put in the public domain hours after Ministers knew it. Call that spinning? It is ridiculous.

Brian Iddon: My concern is also for the reputation of the scientists and laboratories involved in the incident. All those in the House with a detailed knowledge of science, including my right hon. Friend, know that the storage labelling and the integrity of scientific samples, especially during transport from one laboratory to another, are of prima facie importance in science. In the light of that, does she agree that, in order to reverse the damage that may have been done, getting a full technical explanation in the public domain as soon as possible is of the utmost urgency?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I say to him quite honestly that I feel extremely sorry for the scientists involved, although I am probably the only person who does. They must be questioning all their work, and they must be deeply concerned about what has happened. I can assure him that the independent audit that we have commissioned will indeed be made public and that we shall do everything we can to provide as much information as we can as accurately as possible.

Simon Thomas: It is a disgrace that we have had not a single sign of contrition from the Government. Does not the Secretary of State realise that we were within 36 hours of wiping out the sheep farming industry in Wales? The headlines on Saturday following SEAC's meeting on Friday would have been "BSE found in sheep", which would have finished off sheepmeat sales in England and Wales.
	Will the right hon. Lady confirm one thing—that an official of the National Assembly for Wales who was on the working party overseeing the tests and who assisted on the DNA tests, not her Department or an official in it, insisted on the DNA testing? That is why the testing was done at the very last minute. Is it not clear that her Department cannot be responsible for animal health in Wales? It is time that she devolved animal health and other agriculture responsibilities to the National Assembly.

Margaret Beckett: I did not think that anyone could vie with the Conservatives in a ridiculous rant, but clearly the hon. Gentleman is trying hard. I am not aware of the point that he makes about who gave particular advice, but I simply say to him that it remains the case that my Department commissioned the further information.
	As a Secretary of State I am normally reluctant to decline to apologise, but I say honestly and genuinely to the House that I do not see for what the Department that previously supervised the research, or indeed my Department, is supposed to feel guilty and apologise. The research was not carried out by Government scientists. It was commissioned by a Government—but not by our Government. The cross-check was commissioned by the Government. As soon as we knew that there were problems, we immediately put the information in the public domain. That is the proper way to behave, and that is what I stand for.

Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend emerges from this latest incident with great credit and she should take no criticisms from the Conservative party. When it was in government, I remember Minister after Minister coming to the Dispatch Box to say that, on expert opinion, there was no chance of BSE getting in the food chain, and the appalling scene of Ministers force feeding their children hamburgers. The object lesson of all this is to be wary of experts in her Department and, indeed, from MAFF. Their philosophy seems to be, "If it moves, slaughter it", which probably extends to Ministers. The final lesson surely must be that the sooner people follow my example and become vegetarians, the happier and healthier they will be.

Margaret Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view. I was not aware that he had become a vegetarian. Although I have deep sympathy with his views, I would merely utter to him the word "pesticides."

John Greenway: On food safety, will the Minister confirm—this should reassure the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—that the removal of specified material in all sheep more than one year old will continue? Sheep farmers will be dismayed by this hugely embarrassing delay, because they have been implementing this procedure at great expense. Cull ewes are worthless. Given the Government's refusal to help the sheep industry with that problem, and given that there will be more years of research, will the right hon. Lady consider much more sympathetically the financial support that the Government give to sheep producers in Wales, on the North Yorkshire moors and in the uplands? They are making very little money, and most of them are on the verge of bankruptcy and ruin. They are dismayed by what has happened, because the uncertainty means more delay in getting back to the day when they know that all their sheep are BSE free.

Margaret Beckett: I have great sympathy with the concerns of the farming community. I believe that it is necessary for the removal of specified material to continue. No one regrets more than I do the fact that we have not been able to reduce some of the present uncertainty. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that I referred to the separate work on contemporary sheep brains being carried out at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. We hope that that research will make a contribution. If the tests that the VLA is developing can be validated, peer reviewed and properly accepted as being of use, it will immensely speed up the completion of this work, and we very much want to see that.

Clive Efford: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on her prompt action in publishing this information. Such information should not enter the public domain by being leaked.
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees with me that, as a result of these issues, there is widespread public concern about animal produce from this country. Does she also agree that one of the best ways of restoring confidence is the routine testing of all livestock that enter the human food chain, including cattle of under 36 months?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right that all these issues should be examined carefully and thoroughly and kept under review. The general discussion about where the future of the farming community and the wider rural community lies includes consideration of how we can produce consistent and high-quality food. I have little doubt—this is certainly a matter of discussion—that it requires more individual identification and, ultimately, more individual testing. My hon. Friend will be aware that that will involve substantial costs.

Patrick McLoughlin: Regrettably, before the Secretary of State made this announcement last week the agriculture industry had little confidence in her Department, and her announcement will have further dented its reputation. She could go some way towards restoring that reputation by agreeing to a full public inquiry into the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Will she now consider that at least?

Margaret Beckett: I have already said many times from the Dispatch Box that we have commissioned inquiries of this nature because they can take place more speedily and can disaggregate the science and the long-term implications of a range of animal disease outbreaks. The hon. Gentleman will recall that we have had a range of outbreaks in recent years. The inquiry into precisely what happened during the foot and mouth outbreak and the separate inquiries to consider where the future of the farming community and the rural economy should take us will investigate how we handle those diseases, how we use epidemiology and what lessons we can learn for good or ill. We believe that that will be more effective and speedier than a lengthy public inquiry that tries to undertake all those tasks.

Paul Tyler: Will the Secretary of State return to the critical question of why DNA testing was not included in the original design for the research programme when it was commissioned in 1997 by the Conservative Government? Could it be that there was an attempt to do the job on the cheap? It is an extraordinary fact that the fate of 40 million sheep was to hang on a research programme costing less than £1,000 a week. Does the right hon. Lady believe that, when originally set up, the programme was properly funded?
	Why, in particular, did the professor at the IAH ask, as I understand he did some months ago, about the integrity of the sample that his team was investigating? What motivated him to ask that question?

Margaret Beckett: I cannot say that I have the full details of exactly what happened at every stage of the four-year experiment. I know the institute claims that it undertook some investigation of the sample originally. Information comes in and changes from time to time, but I understand that what has led those at the institute to say that they are not convinced that what was tested at the laboratory of the Government chemist is the material on which they carried out the experiment is the fact that right at the beginning—I think before the experiment commenced—they conducted some tests that they believed identified the material as sheep material.
	I am not sure of the precise nature of the tests; I am not sure whether they were DNA tests or not. I understand, however, that those who carried them out were said to have identified a protein found only in sheep, and therefore felt confident that it was sheep material. I also understand—I am not sure from what interview, but it is my impression that it has happened three or four times over the years—that further checks were sought. Somewhere along the route, flaws emerged. I do not know whether the checks were not carried out in the right way or whether the difficulties arose towards the end of the experiment, and I know the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that I do not intend to speculate. That is what the independent scientific audit will try to establish, and whatever it finds—clear or otherwise—will be put in the public domain.

Anne McIntosh: The right hon. Lady did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who wanted to know why the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), had appeared to experience a kneejerk reaction in saying that all the national stock would be slaughtered. Can she restore the confidence of our sheep producers by saying that that was a regrettable remark, and that such action will now not be necessary?
	The right hon. Lady will be aware that important new evidence has come to light suggesting that variant CJD may not be caused by BSE. Will she commission her Department to try to find conclusive evidence that that is so?

Margaret Beckett: This is the philosopher's stone. No one would like to know anything more than this: what causes BSE, and what we can do about it.
	The hon. Lady mentioned remarks made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. That is, of course, one of the options identified in the national contingency plan; it is the extreme option. I will write to the hon. Lady if I am mistaken, but I believe that the Phillips report recommended that it should be considered if BSE was found in sheep. It has therefore always been one of the options in the contingency plan to deal with the day when BSE in sheep might be identified, but I repeat that up to now the experiments conducted on the current flock have not identified it in them.

Henry Bellingham: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the Institute for Animal Health is accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service? Does she agree that this whole sorry saga is an indictment of the Government's action in submerging agriculture in a much bigger Department? Does she also agree that it is a disgrace that the Minister with dedicated responsibility for agriculture is in the House of Lords rather than here? What signal does that send to the farming community?

Margaret Beckett: That is a very silly remark. The Minister responsible for agriculture is standing at this Dispatch Box, and, indeed, I am the Minister who attends the Agriculture Council. I am not at all sure what makes that an indictment.
	I do not know whether the IAH is accredited by the body cited by the hon. Gentleman, but it has certainly always been widely regarded as a much-respected organisation. No doubt that is why the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported commissioned research from it.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I am now able to respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) last Thursday at column 1324 of Hansard. First, he pointed out that answering a written question orally at the end of questions could mean that Opposition Front Benchers did not get the normal notice of the Minister's statement. I make it clear that this is an exceptional procedure, which requires my permission. When deciding whether to exercise my discretion in that way in future, I will certainly bear in mind the need to give adequate notice.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that the mechanism could be triggered only by a Government Back Bencher and a planted question. That is not the case. When the procedure was used on 8 March, for example, the written question was in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). It is always open to any Member to seek to bring a Minister to the Dispatch Box by way of a private notice question. I hope that helps the hon. Member for North Cornwall.

Points of Order

David Winnick: Mr. Speaker, I know that you are, like your predecessors, concerned with the reputation of the House. There has, understandably, been criticism about the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has not been reappointed as a matter of course. Indeed, a written question on the subject appears in Friday's Hansard.
	What steps can be taken to debate the issue? When I raised the matter with the Leader of the House on 28 June, he said that
	"the present Commissioner has been extremely zealous in performing her duties."—[Official Report, 28 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 782.]
	The suspicion is that in carrying out her duties she has been too zealous in interpreting the rules to which the House has agreed. We know that the office was created because of allegations of sleaze, which did the House so much harm. It is unfortunate that it has been decided that the present Commissioner will not be reappointed as a matter of course. Is there any way in which we can debate the matter on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to advise the hon. Gentleman on procedural matters from the Chair via a point of order. He is as aware of procedure as I am, and it is up to him to find a way of bringing a motion before the House and debating the matter.

Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the House passes its Sessional Orders, dealing with facilities for entry and access to the House, at the beginning of each Session. You may be aware that on Sunday and this morning the traffic light system in Parliament square broke down, causing a considerable build-up of traffic around the House. In light of the difficult circumstances in which we currently operate, when access for emergency vehicles might be needed, I wonder whether you would be so kind as to make inquiries about what can be done to ensure the robustness of the systems that operate the traffic lights, so that at least the terms of our Sessional Orders can be adhered to.

Mr. Speaker: I find that the traffic lights always break down at the most inconvenient time. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that at the moment we have a great many worries, particularly about security, but that matter is now on the record.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Homelessness Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Rough sleepers

'The Rough Sleepers Unit shall cease to operate with effect from April 2002, and its powers and responsibilities shall be devolved to local housing authorities.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Limitation of main homelessness duty for prisoners—
	'In subsection (1) of section 193 of the 1996 Act (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally), after the word "assistance", there is inserted—
	", has not been sentenced to imprisonment in respect of a conviction and been released from imprisonment within a period of six months prior to his application not having been resident in the authority's area at the time of sentence,".'.
	New clause 3—Limitation of main homelessness duty to residents—
	'In subsection (1) of section 193 of the 1996 Act (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally), after the word "assistance", there is inserted—
	", was continually resident in the authority's area for a period of twelve months prior to his application,".'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This is my maiden performance from the Front Bench, and I am honoured to be here.
	The Homelessness Bill has a rather long-drawn-out history. Hon. Members will recall that the Bill's contents were essentially part II of the Homes Bill, which fell in the previous Session because of the general election. Had the Government accepted the Opposition's recommendation that Ministers drop the controversial aspect of the Homes Bill—on the seller's pack—the provisions of the Homelessness Bill would already be enacted and we would not have to spend time today debating the Bill and the proposed amendments to it.

Don Foster: I share many of the hon. Gentleman's feelings on that issue. Nevertheless, does he not accept that the Government's opportunity for reflection during the Dissolution occasioned by the general election has enabled Ministers to table amendments that are welcomed not only by Liberal Democrat Members but by Conservative Members?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right, and Conservative Members welcome greater reflection on any legislation. Indeed, the Opposition have been so critical of the Government's timetabling of various legislation because that timetabling does not allow sufficient reflection on legislation. Moreover, as we shall see today, although Ministers had time to reflect further on this legislation, they have not reflected long enough on some matters. We shall see what Ministers propose now after reflecting on the Opposition's amendments.
	As I said, the House has long awaited the genesis and gestation of the Homelessness Bill. The provisions of new clause 1 itself, on ending the rough sleepers unit, were debated in Committee during passage of both the Homes Bill and the Homelessness Bill. On 25 January 2001, in debate in Committee on the Homes Bill and the provision on rough sleepers, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), said:
	"it is not intended that the unit should become a permanent fixture. Work is already under way to develop an exit strategy . . . It is envisaged that eventually the unit will be wound up and responsibility will be passed back to local authorities."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 January 2001; c. 310.]
	The Opposition have tabled new clause 1 to probe the Government's intention on this matter. The Under–Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—whom I welcome to the debate—said:
	"The rough sleepers unit has begun consulting on a future strategy."
	I believe that that consultation will conclude on 1 April 2002. The Minister continued:
	"The rough sleepers unit consultation process will take into account what role local authorities should play after 2002."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 July 2001; c. 44.]
	Therefore, the first question for the Minister is what role she envisages for the rough sleepers unit. The purpose of new clause 1 is not to criticise the RSU's performance, as that has been rather good. From June 1998 to June 2000, the number of rough sleepers has decreased by 62 per cent., from 1,850 to 700, which is a commendable improvement. The reason why Opposition Members object to the RSU is that it is too bureaucratic and too expensive. Moreover, local authorities have the major role in dealing with rough sleepers. We believe that, as local authorities know most about what is happening in relation to rough sleeping in their area, they should be the leading partner in dealing with the problem.
	What is the current nature of the problem of rough sleeping? As we know, 700 people are still sleeping rough on the streets. No hon. Member on either side of the House wants to see anyone sleeping rough at any stage, and we all accept that most of those who are sleeping rough are transient and can be helped in one way or another. We know also, however, that hard-drug use is a major factor in the reasons why people sleep rough. Some 75 per cent. of the rough sleepers in Soho are involved with hard or soft drugs. Perhaps we need to tackle the underlying problems in this area.
	Another reason that the Government may cite for keeping the rough sleepers unit is that a large number of rough sleepers come from our armed forces. That is an utter disgrace. If we cannot provide proper counselling for members of our armed forces to ensure that when they leave they have a proper place to sleep and bring up their families, something is very wrong with the organisation.

Mike Hancock: If the new clause were successful, is the hon. Gentleman confident that local authorities will have the ability to perform similar roles to the rough sleepers unit? Will they be objective in carrying out that responsibility? Will they be able to cope with the pressure that will be put on them by charities and organisations that will constantly press them to look closely at the problem of rough sleepers? I do not believe that local authorities will be able to deal with that responsibility objectively. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell me whether he thinks they could.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We are not saying that local authorities should have the sole role in this matter; indeed, they will be one of the partners, along with the voluntary sector and charities. Local authorities know best what is going on in their area and they are the correct people to play the leading role. The hon. Gentleman asked whether local authorities would be objective. The vast bulk of local authorities—which do a tremendously good job—will take a responsible role and will be effective.
	It must be said that the authorities that are most likely to be effective in this area are Conservative-controlled. In terms of turning around empty houses, Conservative authorities are successful, while Labour authorities take many months, or more, to turn them round. The local authority in Westminster has come up with innovative schemes to house rough sleepers, and such schemes should be replicated across the country. Best practice should be disseminated by the internet and other forms of information technology. By doing that, local authorities, with other partners, will be able to tackle the problem of the remaining rough sleepers.

Brian Iddon: I have news for the hon. Gentleman. Many Labour-controlled local authorities have the same initiatives as the council he has just mentioned. My authority, Bolton, has a very good rough sleepers initiative. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the proposals implied by his new clause could be built into the requirements of the homelessness strategy that the Government will ask local authorities to produce?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree. The two aspirations—the new clause and the hon. Gentleman's comments—are not mutually exclusive. One would expect the Government to build into the Bill some form of duty for local authorities. This problem is too important to be left hanging in the air and that is not the intention of my new clause. The intention is to probe the Government in view of previous statements by Ministers on the realistic role of the rough sleepers unit.
	The unit is somewhat bureaucratic and expensive. We know, for example, that it has a budget of £198 million over three years, which could go directly to local authorities. That is a huge sum that, to use a rather crude phrase, could be recycled into the problem. I do not mean that uncaringly, but it is a simple fact of life that the money could go towards solving the problem, especially as local authorities already have housing staff in place, so there is some duplication between local authorities and the unit. We want to eliminate that duplication, not in any way to reduce the effectiveness of the effort being made to deal with the problem, which we regard, as the hon. Gentleman does, as very important.

Laurence Robertson: There is indeed a great deal of duplication. Will my hon. Friend speculate on how many homeless people that size of budget could help if it were channelled directly into the problem?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend reinforces my comments about duplication. Anyone can do the maths: 700 people divided into £198 million produces a very large sum for each rough sleeper. I am not saying that I would expect all the money to go towards the rough sleeping problem. It could be well directed towards some of the other problems that I have outlined, and others that we will refer to in our subsequent discussions.
	The unit's administration budget is £3.6 million, and the chief executive is paid between £70,000 and £75,000. I do not begrudge her that in the slightest—she has done an amazingly good job—but she could be using her skills elsewhere, and the money that she and her staff are paid could be going towards dealing with this and other problems.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) tabled new clause 2 to try to ensure that those who are released from prison do not get undue priority in a local authority's provision for the unintentionally homeless. This is a sensitive area. The problem with one group being given priority is that other groups are de facto disadvantaged. We have all heard from perfectly ordinary, decent constituents who, for one reason or another, despite being highly deserving, have not accumulated quite enough points—if the local authority is using a points system—to be housed. If we are to give criminals—that is what they are, or they would not have been in prison in the first place—priority over some of those people, it will make it even harder for them to get off the bottom of the pile.
	I do not want to be too harsh. Of course, the rehabilitation of offenders must be an important part of our work. Again, we should give local authorities more discretion. Every case is different, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will know from your surgeries. You will have had heart-rending cases of people who have not been able to get priority for housing. In some circumstances, people coming out of prison might deserve priority, but it should not be written into the Bill that all such people should get it automatically. The more inclusive lists become in legislation, the more exclusive they are of those people who are not on the list. I wholly support new clause 2, and I hope that the Government will take it into account.
	The third of our new clauses deals with priority for local people. This, too, is a difficult area; I have had several recent constituency cases involving the same kind of people—those who have not notched up enough points to be given priority housing, who find that people come in from outside the area and take priority over them.
	If we want to maintain communities we should give local people some sort of priority. People moving back to live near their families are a classic case; communities would be strengthened by giving them priority over somebody coming in from outside—for example, a criminal. A criminal coming in from outside could be made a priority over people who were originally local and wanted to move back and live near their family. The problem when such people lose a house is more acute in rural areas, because in some places, a village house owned by a registered social landlord comes up only once every few years, and if a local person loses that one opportunity it may not come again for a long time.
	My hon. Friend is right to want to put on the statute book the idea that those who have a local connection should be one of the groups considered to have a priority need for housing.

Brian Iddon: The hon. Gentleman seems to be concentrating on areas of high demand, but he knows that houses are available in areas of low demand. If the Government accepted new clause 3, would it not rule out a person moving from an area of high demand to an area of low demand?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Opposition believe that, by and large, people should be housed in the area from which they come. If people come—from London, for example—to seek priority housing in an area of low demand such as his, if there is no priority housing available, it would be better for them to be sent back to their own local authority, if that is convenient and possible for them, and that authority should then consider the problem.
	I accept that the problems for an authority such as the hon. Gentleman's are totally different from those in my area. Legislation, however, always deals with the most difficult cases, and in an authority such as mine, where there are probably five potential applicants for every house that becomes available, it is disheartening for local people with a reasonably high priority need for housing to find that people coming in from the outside make sure that they never reach the point of being offered a house. I accept part of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I believe that he would also recognise the severe difficulties that face an authority such as mine.
	Priorities are difficult, but the Opposition think that local authorities should be given discretion. Hon. Members will see that later amendments attempt to give local authorities more duties and obligations—yet the more duties and obligations we give local authorities, the less easy it is for them to make their own decisions and the less effective they will become.
	For example, a huge number of directives and regulations have been issued concerning housing benefit, and in some authorities the administration of that benefit has descended into chaos. The Opposition do not want to see that. We want an effective homelessness policy; we want local authorities' housing policies to become ever more effective, with rapid turnround of empty houses in both the private and the public sector, so that we can deal with some of the problems.
	New clause 1 deals with rough sleepers—a problem that we acknowledge, and want to reduce further. We also want to ensure that correct discretion is given to local authorities over which groups should have priority on the housing list, and new clauses 2 and 3 were tabled with that objective in mind. I ask the Government to answer the questions that I have posed.

Sally Keeble: I welcome the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to his new position and to the deliberations on the Bill. The new clauses and the other amendments tabled all seek to alter the homelessness responsibilities of local housing authorities.
	New clause 1 would cease the operation of the rough sleepers unit and give housing authorities the primary responsibility for addressing problems of rough sleeping. I hope that all hon. Members share the Government's concern for the plight of people sleeping rough. The RSU was established in 1999. It has been set the specific objective of reducing the number of people sleeping rough in England to as near zero as possible, and by at least two-thirds, by April 2002.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, the unit has already made excellent progress towards that demanding target. It has taken a partnership approach, delivered through a national strategy. Housing authorities and voluntary sector agencies play a key role in delivering the strategy at local level. One of the successes of the unit has been its ability to draw together different programmes from across government, including programmes to help people suffering mental ill health or problems of drug and alcohol addiction. It takes a joined-up approach in looking at why people sleep rough in the first place, and offering them an alternative to a life on the streets.
	By working across government, the unit makes sure that all organisations with a stake in the problem—like local authorities, the Prison Service, the Benefits Agency and the armed forces—are doing their bit to tackle it. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the results had been good, but that is not only because the unit has been able to reduce the numbers—the head count—sleeping rough. It has also been successful in changing thinking in the approach to dealing with rough sleepers and introducing more permanent solutions.
	The unit has been consulting authorities, voluntary sector homelessness agencies and others, including people sleeping rough, former rough sleepers and those at risk of rough sleeping, on a future strategy. The unit is currently examining responses to the consultation and is evaluating the impact of its strategy to identify how work to tackle rough sleeping, and prevent people from hitting the streets in the first place, should continue beyond April 2002. The hon. Gentleman recognised the impact of that date. An announcement on the future arrangements will be made in the coming months.
	The role of housing authorities will, of course, be a factor in the analysis. They will need to build on their present successes in working in partnership with voluntary sector agencies and other statutory organisations to reduce the number of people sleeping rough, to ensure that numbers are sustained at a low level. That will be a substantial challenge. The hon. Member for Cotswold identified the role of the Ministry of Defence and, in doing so, he recognised the complexity of the issue and the importance of ensuring a smooth transition from the present arrangements to whatever comes after April 2002. The new ways of working that have been introduced must be continued, so that we do not see a rise in the head count of people sleeping rough after that date.

Mike Hancock: Is the Minister satisfied that the RSU and her Department have accurate figures for the number of rough sleepers? A survey was done in my constituency—the city of Portsmouth has around 140,000 adults—and only one rough sleeper was found. When that result was questioned, it was suggested that the count was inaccurate because the likely places to find rough sleepers were too dangerous for the people carrying out the surveys to enter to ascertain the true figure. I know that on one evening at least a dozen people were sleeping in a derelict building but who had not formed part of the count.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. The head counts are snapshots taken at a particular point in time. The work of the rough sleepers unit has shown that there is often a perceptible difference between the number of people who sleep rough and the number out on the streets during the day. If the hon. Gentleman has clear evidence of a substantial mistake, I would be happy to take it up.
	The numbers reflect the circumstances of the nights on which head counts are taken. They are taken repeatedly and all the evidence points to a substantial and sustained decrease in the number of people sleeping rough which, I am sure, is down to the innovative and sometimes challenging way in which the rough sleepers unit has gone about its task. In the context of that work, I ask the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the new clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister accept that the success of the rough sleepers unit has been largely superseded and that the purpose of this consultation is to see what should follow it? We should use the resources that it consumes in a better way and, in particular, ensure that the best practice for which it is responsible is disseminated and used by local authorities.

Sally Keeble: I take issue with what the hon. Gentleman says. First, I would not underestimate the real value of the rough sleepers unit in challenging some of the conventions, including some voluntary sector assumptions, about rough sleepers. That has been extremely important and could have been done only by a very strong, centrally based unit.
	It is also extremely important to recognise that the rough sleepers unit has not succeeded simply because it has got numbers down in one or two head counts. It has identified some of the structural causes of people sleeping rough and has considered structural solutions to the problem. Whatever the transition that takes place, those arrangements must be maintained so that there is no damage to some of the working practices which I suspect are still in their infancy, comparatively speaking. We do not want a return to the kind of problems which were well known in London when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government. That is why it is particularly important that we conduct the consultation carefully and do not precipitate a decision, one way or another, simply for the convenience of this legislation.

Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend accept the point that I made to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton- Brown) about local authorities building in to their strategy reports how they will deal with rough sleepers in the future?

Sally Keeble: That matter will covered in guidance; I am sure that people will find it of interest.

Charles Hendry: Does the hon. Lady agree in principle with the comments of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), that the rough sleepers unit has a finite lifetime? If so, when we will have an exit strategy? When does the hon. Lady envisage that the current programme is due to reach its target, if not next year?

Sally Keeble: I have already given the time scales for the consultation, for when we expect to have a strategy and when, therefore, we expect to move on. It is more important to have the right solution than one that is time limited. I would prefer to have in place arrangements that not only deal with people currently sleeping rough but ensure that those who are at risk of being on the streets—people who have been in care, in the army or have come out of prison—do not end up sleeping rough. I would prefer a good solution to one that suits a particular bureaucratic time scale.
	To turn to new clauses 2 and 3, the essence of the Homelessness Bill, and our proposed draft order extending the priority need categories, is to offer greater protection to those who are genuinely homeless through no fault of their own. It is about achieving more equitable systems for the allocation of social housing, and ensuring that authorities think strategically about the needs of all groups in their area and plan appropriate provision of accommodation and support accordingly. In short, the Bill mixes pragmatism with compassion, both of which the Opposition are clearly short on when it comes to the issue of ex-offenders.
	There is a broad consensus of support for the thrust of the Bill, which is to strengthen the safety net available for people who are homeless and have a priority need. That consensus of support has included Opposition Members, yet new clauses 2 and 3 would weaken the safety net.
	The effect of new clause 2 would be that ex-prisoners who wanted to make a homelessness application within six months of their release from prison would have to apply to the local housing authority in whose district they were residing when they were sentenced. If they were to apply to any other local housing authority within that period, no duty whatever would be owed—regardless of whether they were unintentionally homeless and had a priority need for accommodation. Only after six months would they be able to make an application to other local housing authorities and have it properly considered in the normal way.
	To an extent, I understand the intention behind the new clause, and sympathise with the constituency interests that it seeks to protect. I think that they apply to one constituency in particular. I sense that, behind the new clause, there is concern that the draft order that the Government propose to make under section 189 of the Housing Act 1996, to extend the categories of applicant who have a priority need for accommodation, may lead to a significant increase in the number of ex-prisoners who will be entitled to temporary accommodation under the homelessness legislation.
	Let me make clear that there is no reason to expect that the order would have the result predicted. First, the order would provide that there was priority need only where the housing authority was satisfied that the individual was vulnerable. Secondly, authorities should already accept that applicants who are vulnerable for that reason—or any other—have a priority need by virtue of the current provisions in section 189 of the 1996 Act. These provide that a person has a priority need if he is vulnerable not only as a result of factors such as old age and mental illness, but as a result of another special reason.
	There has been a lot of nonsense—some of it shameful—talked about the provisions in the draft order which bear on those who are vulnerable as a result of having served a custodial sentence. It has been suggested that the order would allow ex-prisoners to jump the housing queue ahead of families. This is nonsense, and it confuses priority need for short-term assistance under the homelessness legislation with priority for an allocation of long-term housing through the housing register. The order bears on applications for assistance under the homelessness legislation. It puts ex-prisoners who are homeless and genuinely vulnerable on the same footing as other vulnerable homeless people who need short-term assistance with accommodation until a settled housing solution can be found.
	I understand the thinking behind the new clause, but the 1996 Act already contains adequate provisions to address the situation where a person applies for homelessness assistance to an authority in one area but has a local connection elsewhere. Under current provisions, where an authority has decided that an applicant is unintentionally homeless, in priority need and owed a main homelessness duty, and if the applicant does not have a local connection with that authority's district but has one somewhere else, the authority has a discretionary power to refer the applicant to the authority in the area where there is a connection. For that purpose, a local connection can be established because of residence—by the person's choice—employment or family associations in the area or because of special circumstances.
	Under guidelines issued by the Local Government Association, to which all housing authorities operate, there must be normal residence in an area of at least six months before a local connection is established by way of residence for the purpose of meeting the statutory conditions for referral. However, there is specific provision in the 1996 Act which prevents a local connection being established as a result of the applicant becoming resident in an area because he is detained in prison. Thus, under current provisions and arrangements, it would be open to an authority dealing with an applicant who was unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and who met the additional criteria that new clause 2 would impose, to refer him or her to another authority.
	New clause 3 seeks to tinker with existing provisions on local connection; I have already explained how those provisions work. Broadly speaking, under current arrangements, a person will not establish a local connection with an area by way of residence until he or she is normally resident there of their own choice—so not in prison—for at least six months. A local connection can also be established as a result of employment, family associations or special circumstances. The current arrangements therefore provide a pragmatic and flexible framework which, on the one hand, helps to provide a safety net for homeless people, allowing them to seek help wherever they are, regardless of whether they have a local connection. On the other hand, it allows local authorities to refer applicants to the appropriate authority in cases in which the local connection rests elsewhere.
	New clause 3 would demolish that pragmatic framework. One effect would be that, regardless of whether homeless applicants had a local connection with an area because of employment, family associations or other reasons, they would be unable to obtain any homelessness assistance from the local authority in that area if they had not been resident there for at least 12 months. Such a proposition is unacceptable.
	However, the effects of new clause 3 would go much wider. Many applicants will have lived somewhere in Great Britain for at least 12 months and would therefore be able to make an application to an authority somewhere, even if that involved making an application from a location at one end of the country to an authority at the other end. But what about the position of those applicants who had not lived anywhere in Great Britain for 12 months, which could include people from overseas who had been granted refugee status or given indefinite or exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom? It could also include European nationals with a right of residence in the UK. Those groups are eligible for assistance under the homelessness legislation, but could be denied access to such help under new clause 3. Quite apart from the practical implications, that could result in a breach of the UK's EU treaty obligations and other international obligations. The way in which those rules operate is obviously fairly complex, but they are designed to give the correct balance of rights for the homeless and flexibility for local authorities to make the best possible arrangements for people who present themselves as homelessness, so I strongly urge hon. Members not to press new clauses 2 and 3.

Adrian Sanders: Liberal Democrat Members welcomed the Bill first time round and we welcome even more its re-emergence in amended form. Clearly, some thought and reflection have taken place in the intervening period and it has been much improved; Liberal Democrat Members hope to improve it still further.
	We do not support the three new clauses, and would probably not do so in any circumstances. I have been a critic of the rough sleepers unit, partly because rough sleepers come in all shapes and sizes, but the initial recommendations for removing the bulk of them from the streets basically increased the provision available for those who would otherwise have gone into hostels. My criticism of the policy is that many rough sleepers have particular needs, but they do not all have those needs met. For example, those who require drug rehabilitation cannot all find places on rehabilitation programmes. Indeed, it is often the case not that there are no resources for such programmes, but that there are not enough people to carry them out. The Government ought to look at that separately; I am sure that the rough sleepers unit will be aware of it.
	There are other issues which some people might consider minor. For example, a rough sleeper who has a pet cannot take it into a hostel. More thought needs to be given to the first stage of helping people to rehabilitate themselves after rough sleeping, if the problem is simply that they cannot take a place in a hostel because they have a pet animal with them.
	The bulk of the work of the rough sleepers unit has rightly been praised from all parts of the House. The unit has issued best practice guidelines which have been of great benefit to local authorities. The fact that the unit examines what is happening in various parts of the country, assesses the numbers, and issues guidelines has improved the services available throughout the country to local authorities trying to tackle the problem of rough sleepers. Given that the Government have promised a review of the rough sleepers unit, the new clause should be withdrawn and forgotten for the moment.
	New clause 2 would reduce the duty to assist people released from prison. First, it would set a six-month period from release until authorities had a duty to assist with housing. Secondly, if the applicant was not resident in the area at the time of sentencing, the authority would have no duty.
	The Liberal Democrat view is that housing is fundamental to the rehabilitation of ex-offenders. Evidence suggests that people with fixed accommodation are less likely to reoffend and are more committed to any assistance programme in which they may be involved. The clause would make it much harder for ex-offenders to find accommodation and to move away from areas where they have criminal connections.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) seemed to suggest that once the sentence is served, the offender remains a criminal. That is not the view of our criminal justice system, and it is certainly not the view of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify what I said. Once a criminal has served his sentence, he can in no way still be considered a criminal. We are discussing the housing priority of various groups. It is our view that that matter is best left to the discretion of the local authority, especially in areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). His authority has a particular problem, as it has three prisons.

Adrian Sanders: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. He said in his opening remarks that ex-offenders were criminals, and that criminals would jump the queue. However, they are no longer criminals once they have served their sentence, and I am glad for that clarification. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that former criminals were one of the largest groups of rough sleepers. The clause would remove their right to receive assistance as a priority group and their right to be looked on kindly by local authorities.
	New clause 3 would limit the main homelessness duty to residents. It seems to confuse the aims of the Bill. There is a distinction between offering support to various groups and the allocation of priorities. The hon. Member for Cotswold mentioned service people. They may not be able to provide a local address within the previous 12 months, which would automatically remove their right to be recognised under the Bill as a priority group. The effects of the clause on such groups have not been properly thought through.
	I shall comment later on the general deficiencies in the Government's homelessness policy, if I am lucky enough to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye. Meanwhile, in respect of all three new clauses, I hope that the motion will be withdrawn.

Glenda Jackson: I oppose the new clauses, which seem paradoxical in what they purport to achieve. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench on these issues, was rightly full of praise for the work that has been achieved by the rough sleepers unit, and its particular initiative in reducing the numbers of rough sleepers on our streets. However, new clauses 2 and 3, by what they would require of the Bill, would make the situation perfect for increasing the number of rough sleepers on our streets.
	It is surely absurd to dub somebody an ex-offender, but perhaps I am paraphrasing what the hon. Member for Cotswold said. People can be in prison who are ex-members of the armed forces. They can be drug and alcohol-dependent and can be vulnerable. If they have nowhere to go after having served their prison sentence and no one is responsible for attempting to house them, their most natural recourse will be to rough sleeping back on the streets.
	The hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused about the realities of the housing that is provided by local authorities for people for whom they must already accept a responsibility. He kept talking about houses. It would be rare in the borough in my constituency and in some of the most hard-pressed boroughs, if not all the boroughs in the Greater London area, if they were able to afford to offer a house to anyone for whom they had a specific housing responsibility. There are vast numbers of people in temporary housing. Families are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about locality and individuals' links with particular areas. In Greater London, local authorities accept housing responsibilities, but they may house a group, an individual or a family in a borough many miles from their own. It is especially a problem for the GLA because it is probably the most hard-pressed area for housing, and certainly for affordable housing, in the United Kingdom.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I do not support the call for the rough sleepers unit to be wound up and for responsibility to be farmed out to local authorities. The idea of the hon. Member for Cotswold—that the problems of rough sleepers would be solved by divvying up £198 million between 700 people—leads me to believe that he is not as aware as he should be of the realities of rough sleepers.
	Often, a rough sleeper's problems are not solved by bricks and mortar alone. Such people have many complex needs that cannot be met by an individual or one organisation. They require properly integrated support packages, which in my experience include a local authority and a voluntary or charitable organisation. The national health service will most certainly be included, not least in the area of improving mental health. There may be a requirement for advice from the Benefits Agency. Certainly there will be a need for retraining and reskilling. The needs of rough sleepers run through our national life, which is why I do not support the new clauses.
	I return to the point that I was attempting to make to my hon. Friend the Minister. Once the proper exit strategy for the rough sleepers initiative has been achieved, there will still be a need for services to be provided for them. People will continue to come on to the streets, especially those of central London. Four London boroughs are carrying the heaviest burden, and perhaps she and other right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department could examine the possibility of transferring the responsibilities of the rough sleepers initiative to the Mayor and the GLA. Perhaps this is not a true belief, but there is anecdotal evidence of some of the more distant or outer boroughs of the GLA saying, "We have no rough sleeping problem." No, they do not, because their rough sleepers come to central London. The increase in young people sleeping rough on the streets of central London is almost invariably due to their coming from the outer London boroughs. They are there because of family breakdown and, in some instances, severe abuse in the family. The instability of an environment where severe overcrowding has an impact on the whole family is also a factor.
	I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider my suggestion because, despite the RSU's excellent work, I believe that such an approach to preventing rough sleeping and keeping people off the streets will not remain a central and integral part of the work of the London boroughs and local authorities throughout the country.
	New clauses 2 and 3 would increase the possibility of ever more rough sleepers on the streets.

Andrew Turner: I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that the delay in introducing the Bill has been fortunate, especially for the two issues to do with prisoners and others. My constituency background led to my tabling new clauses 2 and 3, but I am sure that the experience is not limited to my constituency.
	The Minister acknowledged the specific circumstances of the Isle of Wight in respect of prisoners, but the relevance of the point about other people moving into a constituency and seeking housing is not confined to the Isle of Wight. The island word "overner" is usually used jocularly to refer to someone who comes from the mainland. No one counts as an islander without being there longer than 30 years.
	Prisoners do not choose to come to the island, but they may choose to remain. Many new Members must deal with the problem of who is responsible for prisoners. When prisoners write to me from Parkhurst, do they belong to me or the Member of Parliament for their home constituency? When prisoners' relatives who live on the island complain to me about conditions in a prison in another part of the country, is it my responsibility or that of another hon. Member?
	Residents of the island believe that those leaving prison are the responsibility of where they came from. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) was wrong to suggest that new clause 2 would remove any duty to provide assistance for prisoners. It merely makes it clear that the duty should be exercised by the authority in which a prisoner lived at the time of sentencing. Provision for prisoners should be made, but not in the constituency where they happen to be imprisoned and released.
	As the Minister acknowledged, there are three prisons on the island. That must be more per head than in most constituencies. One in particular has a good record of dealing with drug addiction and paedophiles. It is not surprising that paedophiles find it more difficult to move back to their home constituencies when they are released and are therefore more likely to seek housing on the island. That, however, is not the right solution because they need to be reintegrated.
	There are examples of paedophiles who, on their release, have returned to Newport, in my constituency, to the house they lived in when they were convicted. They are known by the local community, which takes a tolerant, understanding and sensible attitude towards them and does not drum them out. Surely we would recommend that approach, not their transfer to a place with which they have no connection and where they are likely to be regarded with grave suspicion.
	I do not demur from the assertion of the need to offer support to released prisoners, but that requirement should not be imposed on my constituents—or on the constituents of other hon. Members with prison establishments in their constituencies—disproportionately. There are also prisoners whose wives or girl friends come to live on the island during their sentence, because that makes it easier to visit. It is difficult for local people to see that those wives or girl friends deserve to be housed on the island at the time of release.
	The Minister suggested that there was a lack of compassion in the amendments. There is no lack of compassion, but there is an understanding that if we give priority to one group, we reduce the priority of another. I would like to emphasise, particularly to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), that there is no suggestion that prisoners should not be dealt with, merely a suggestion that they should be dealt with where they live, rather than where they are released.

Don Foster: Can the hon. Gentleman imagine a situation in which a prisoner might, as a result of the offence for which he or she was convicted, subsequently have a major family breakdown? That prisoner's main relatives might happen to live in the same constituency as the one the prison is in; it would therefore be more appropriate for that person to be housed in that area. I accept that that is fairly unlikely, but it is possible. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment would prevent that from happening?

Andrew Turner: I would not agree with that for a moment.

Don Foster: Why not?

Andrew Turner: Because the amendment makes certain provisions. It contains an awful lot of double negatives. Perhaps I should read it and put the pauses in. It provides for the insertion of the words
	", has not been sentenced . . . in respect of a conviction"—
	pause—
	"and been released from imprisonment within a period of six months prior to his application"—
	pause—
	"not having been resident in the authority's area at the time of sentence,".
	In other words, if he was resident there at the time of sentence, he would be a priority for that local authority.

Don Foster: We are dealing with a hypothetical example, but I was using it to illustrate the complexity of the situation and the problem that would be created by the hon. Gentleman's amendment. It would be perfectly possible for someone to have been sentenced in another local authority area and to have had a breakdown of family relationships as a result of the activity that led him to be sentenced. The remainder of his family might happen to live in the local authority area in which the prison was located. By the hon. Gentleman's own admission, that local authority would be unable to assist that person in those circumstances, even if it wished to do so.

Andrew Turner: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the remainder of the prisoner's family with whom he maintains good relations. I misunderstood; I thought that he meant those with whom he no longer had good relations. In those circumstances, I hope that the family would be able to support the person, and that he would not expect that support to be provided by the rest of the community.
	I want to add a further point on the housing of former offenders. It is a matter of great concern to my constituents, and perhaps to many others, that housing associations do not have information on the records of ex-offenders when they come to allocate housing to them. They might, therefore, allocate housing to known paedophiles, who have finished their sentences, in the middle of housing estates or blocks of flats where young children live. That matter—although not the subject of the amendment—needs to be taken on board by the Government.
	New clause 3 relates to the problem of the definition of "local connection" for the purposes of statutory homelessness. I thank the Minister, in passing, for confirming that local authorities will be allowed to take account of local connection in their allocation procedures. However, the new clause is about statutory homelessness. Many people on the south coast of England, and perhaps in many other parts of the country, come to coastal constituencies to work in the holiday trade or in fruit picking, and to live in holiday accommodation that is available for short lets during the winter months. At the end of, say, six or seven months, they present themselves as homeless to the local authority. If they are taken as homeless, they go up in priority and the normal, regular, long-standing residents of the constituency go down. We must understand that giving additional priority to one person means a lower priority for someone else. That is the point that has not been accepted by Liberal Democrat Members. Priority for one means less priority for another; frankly, islanders are fed up with being pushed to the end of the queue by people who come to work as fruit or tomato pickers.

David Wright: Would not the hon. Gentleman have been better served by tabling a new clause that specifically mentioned those groups, if he is particularly concerned about them? This is a blunderbuss new clause that covers a range of people.

Andrew Turner: I did not table a new clause dealing with specific groups because I do not want to remove any powers from the local authority. I merely want to remove the compulsion on it. It is better to leave local authorities with a range of powers, which they exercise at their discretion, rather than undertake detailed intervention by the Government or the House.

Mike Hancock: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what would happen to a service man whose family or marriage broke up while he was at sea? On his return from the sea, he might leave the Navy. The family might have been based in my constituency in Portsmouth and his natural home would be Portsmouth, but perhaps for more than a year he would have had no recognition of that fact and no address in Portsmouth or anywhere else that was his.

Andrew Turner: Nothing in the new clause would remove local authority discretion to give priority to specific groups. All I am saying is that many constituencies, which are perhaps not like Portsmouth, South, experience a regular, seasonal influx of workers who, at the end of their term, during which they might have been provided with accommodation while they picked tomatoes or garlic, present themselves as homeless. They jump the queue in which others have waited patiently.

Glenda Jackson: I am most interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not understand why his local authority accepts people as homeless without considering other contingencies that would make them vulnerable. Surely we are discussing not the exercise of local authority discretion, but how most local authorities, which are seriously overstretched in respect of affordable social housing, attempt to deal with such problems. I have yet to encounter a local authority that does not have a strict listing of what constitutes vulnerability.

Andrew Turner: I am sure that that is true, but the point is that those who live in an area temporarily, having come for a specific short-term job, should not get priority above normal residents. That is the substance of my new clause.

Glenda Jackson: I am still not clear why the hon. Gentleman's local authority would for 30 seconds think itself responsible for those particular itinerant workers.

Andrew Turner: Perhaps the hon. Lady should correspond with my local authority.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman should do that.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) has the problem, not me. That is the position as it is perceived by so many of my constituents.

Charles Hendry: I rise to support new clause 1 and to make a few points about new clause 2.
	I agree entirely with those who have spoken about the success of the rough sleepers unit over the past few years, but I was intrigued as I listened to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) as she suggested that all the changes and the joined-up thinking across government began when the unit was created.
	The hon. Lady overlooked a lot of the good work done in preceding years by the rough sleepers initiative, which sought precisely to bring Departments together in such a way that they would realise that many of the homeless and people on the streets had significant problems not just with drugs or alcohol, but with welfare, education and a range of different issues. The great strength of the rough sleepers initiative was that it tried to tackle those problems. The RSU moved on from that by providing an actual presence. It is wrong to say that that approach was taken only when the unit was suggested.
	At the outset, I should have declared an interest as vice-president of The Big Issue Foundation. I should be grateful if that could be put on the record.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) suggested that the £198 million that is spent each year by the RSU could be better spent by local authorities, and I agree with his assessment. What worried me about the Minister's response to my intervention was that ministerial minds seem to be moving from a unit set up specifically to tackle the current crisis to something that is part of the permanent structure of government. I sense that the proposals will contain not an exit strategy, but an explanation of why Ministers believe that the unit should continue for some years more and then be reviewed again.
	Unless the Bill contains a requirement that the unit should be wound up by a specific time, the issue will gradually slip off the agenda. The Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), was right to recognise that the unit should not have an enduring, permanent quality. When it has achieved its intentions, we should find other ways to carry out that work.
	We should also recognise that the issues that affect different parts of the country reflect different needs. If money, instead of being handled entirely through the unit, were given to the local authorities affected, they would address their homelessness problems in different ways. It is possible that they would take a different approach in Hampstead and Highgate from that taken by Westminster, or Westminster would want to do it differently from Brighton or Manchester. Only by being given the funds, the ability and the discretion to deal with homelessness can local authorities make decisions in the interests of people living and sleeping rough in their areas.
	Where appropriate, local authorities should be able to move towards prevention rather than cure. The numbers of rough sleepers are coming down—we all welcome that—so local authorities will want to become more proactive in addressing this problem. If they have the numbers firmly under control, they will want to prevent people from sleeping rough rather than take responsive action. That should not be done centrally: individual local authorities should be given the chance to do that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold spoke about people who leave the armed forces. Another dimension to the problem is the frightening proportion of rough sleepers who have come out of local authority care. Many of those people are still of an age at which the local authority has a legal duty of care towards them. One of the most scandalous failures of the public sector has been that it has let down young people in care. The public sector says that it will look after vulnerable people, but in no other example has it failed them so dismally with such disastrous consequences. That is not a criticism of the Government; it is a continuing criticism of the care system over many years. It would make sense for the money that is spent by the RSU to be passed back to local authorities so that they can put in place the strategies and structures that would enable them to fulfil their duty of care most effectively.
	I listened with great care to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on new clause 2. Clearly, he has a particular problem, but it is not unique to the Isle of Wight. Many of us have constituencies with prisons in them or adjacent to them. It is a matter of great concern to all those communities that people coming out of prison look to set up their new homes in those areas. There may be good reasons why they do not want to go back to the areas they came from—either because of marital breakdown or because the nature of the crimes that they committed was such that they do not feel they can fit back into that community. The communities in which prisons are, however, should not then bear the burden of finding housing for those people as well.
	I was not sure what the Minister meant when she used the phrase "resident by a person's choice". I am not sure what that means. Many people leaving prison or any other form of institutional life would love to live in East Sussex, a beautiful area with wonderful scenery and great facilities. One can see why they would make that choice; one can also see why many people would want to live in an inner-city area with a vibrant community. I feel, however, that there should be a more tangible reason for wanting to live somewhere than the fact that it is an attractive location.
	The Minister mentioned family connections. How tenuous could such a connection be? Are we talking about parents, or about brothers and sisters? Might a great-aunt happen to live in a place in which such people think it would be pleasant to live? That phrase, too, must be clarified.
	Above all, when dealing with the resettlement of offenders, we must focus on what is best for them. Resettling them in the area in which they have just left prison may not be the best way of doing that. There will be places where they know more people, where they have a circle of friends, and which could have a positive influence on their rehabilitation.
	What causes a number of people to return to the spiral of decline into criminality after their release is the nature of the circumstances and the community in which they happen to be living. Unless there is a support structure consisting of people who know and care about them, and who will tell them that there is a better way of leading their lives than a return to crime, it will be much more difficult to ensure that they do not slip back into criminality. If they come out of Parkhurst and live somewhere else on the Isle of Wight, or come out of Lewes and live in Lewes, they will not have access to the support system that would enable them to break away from a life of crime. That must be our first objective, and that is why I support new clause 2.
	I have little to say about new clause 3, but I think it has a particular dimension relating to the Isle of Wight. In areas with peculiar local authority boundaries—such as that between Wealden and Mid-Sussex—a number of anomalies would arise. People living in a small village next to a large town where their children go to school might wish to move to the town but might find it more difficult than they would otherwise. I see that the new clause has significant advantages for the Isle of Wight, however.
	I hope that the House will accept the new clause.

Mike Hancock: Like many who have already spoken, I think that the extra time available to both Ministers and the House has enabled the Bill to appear in much better shape than it did originally. This must be one of the few occasions when time has been used to good purpose and has fundamentally improved a Bill—so much so that there is now little for most Members to be able to criticise.
	These three interesting new clauses have raised a number of basic points about the way we treat people in this country. The rough sleepers unit may have done a good job, but I am not altogether convinced that it has done the whole job, and I am far from sure that the job is complete to the extent that we can now say the unit should be wound up.
	In an intervention, I mentioned a head count in my constituency. That has left a very bad taste in the mouths of many who have advocated the provision of proper facilities for homeless people. The suggestion that a head count of only one person sleeping rough was an accurate reflection of the situation in a city like Portsmouth was ludicrous and a manifest misrepresentation of the true position. As I said, those conducting the survey were unwilling to enter at least two buildings, simply because of their unsafe nature. The same must apply in many inner-city areas.
	Cities like Portsmouth will soon have no facilities for night shelters for genuine rough sleepers. That is being heavily criticised by Churches and by many of the charitable organisations that have worked for years to observe the rights of, and provide facilities for, young people who—as other Members have said—have been let down by local authorities, and not only those in which they now find themselves. I shall say something about members of the armed forces later, but there are a number of vulnerable people who will never be picked up in surveys and will continue to be a cause of concern to those who genuinely care about the issue.
	I am not entirely sure that local authorities will rush to accept the responsibility proposed in new clause 1. I think there should be at least an arm's-length arrangement directing resources and priorities both to and from Government, and I think it would be lost if the RSU were wound up.
	As for new clause 2, I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on his robust defence of his position. There are three prisons in his constituency, and no one should minimise the problems that that involves. Families do move near to prisons like those and like the one in my constituency, which cater predominantly for long-stay prisoners—very long-stay prisoners, in some instances—to make visiting easier. The Isle of Wight is notoriously unpopular with families because of the logistics of travelling to and from the island at all times of the year. I feel that the hon. Gentleman was right to flag up the issue, but I think he has failed to address a fundamental flaw in his proposal.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we should not allow prisoners the flexibility to identify the Isle of Wight as a good place in which to live. He suggested, however, that the housing needs of a fruit picker who went to the Isle of Wight on a seasonal basis and then decided one year to stay would be readily recognised. He failed to deal with the many other criteria that would have to be met. The prisoner would probably have fallen into the category of those in the place in question and needing support.
	As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) suggested in a forceful and well- thought-out contribution, this is not just about homelessness and providing a safe shelter. It is about the raft of resource support that, in some instances, will be needed over a protracted period to give people a real opportunity to return to the community and be useful citizens.

Andrew Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me at least some support on the question of prisoners. As has been pointed out, a female could well come to the constituency, work as a fruit picker for six months, become pregnant during that time and later present herself as vulnerable because she was pregnant—and later still, perhaps, because she had a young child. I do not deny her vulnerability, but I deny the responsibility.

Mike Hancock: We could nitpick, but I think the hon. Gentleman failed to observe the fundamental flaw in the new clause allowing the Isle of Wight ultimately to decide to whom to give housing priority. It is no different for my local authority, but I believe that prisons present a particular issue.
	There is a prison in my constituency. I do not believe that, in the 30-odd years for which I have represented Portsmouth in one way or another, too many prisoners have decided to come out of Kingston and settle in Portsmouth. It is not that type of prison; it is a lifers' prison. Many prisoners have decided to go back to wherever they lived before their conviction. Indeed, I cannot think of a single instance in which a prisoner has left Kingston and then sought housing from the local authority.
	I have a problem with new clause 2. A constituent of mine was living in a Portsmouth city council property on an estate in another local authority area. He fire-bombed the property and was arrested and put into prison in Winchester. He was convicted after six months on remand and sent to prison from Winchester, yet his family links are in Portsmouth. One wonders where, under new clause 2, he would seek to be rehoused. My constituent has returned to Portsmouth to live with his mother, with whom he has the only stable relationship that he has had in his life. His return poses problems because of the crime for which he was sent to prison, and his neighbours are naturally concerned. However, the situation will hopefully be resolved soon. New clause 2 would cause problems in such cases.
	New clause 3 entirely misses the point of what we are trying to achieve, and it would hinder the working of the Bill, which hon. Members feel goes some way towards addressing homelessness issues. It would cause more problems than Conservative Members hope it would resolve. It would create so many difficulties for those who will make judgments in these cases that in the end very little would happen.
	All three new clauses would cause homelessness, or rough sleeping, to increase. They would put too many obstacles in the way of resolving cases, and I hope that Conservative Members realise that the part of the Bill that they are trying to amend has substantially changed for the better. People who are sleeping rough need three things: they need support, they need somewhere to live and they need to be got off the street. All three can, or at least should, be achieved pretty quickly if the Bill is passed. The new clauses would hinder that process.

Laurence Robertson: Before I entered the House, I worked with the homeless for three years, doing my utmost to run an appeal to finance the creation of a hostel for homeless women in London. Although I do not think that I need to declare that as an interest, it has certainly given me some experience of the subject and a general interest in it. I was very grateful then for the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), who at that time represented High Peak. In his speech, he displayed a great deal of knowledge about homelessness and showed how complicated the subject is.
	My hon. Friend spoke about the rough sleepers initiative, as it was in those days, which I believe was set up in 1993 or 1994. The RSI was useful and provided a great deal of money for the project on which I was working. However, I agree with my Front-Bench colleagues that the time has come to consider whether the money spent on the rough sleepers unit could be better used. I want to touch on issues that have been mentioned already, without detaining the House too long.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) talked about two issues that particularly interest me. The first is the need to understand why people become homeless or, more particularly, why they might sleep on the streets, and the second is duplication. We have considered those matters in some detail, but they deserve further scrutiny.
	The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) spoke about the reasons for homelessness and correctly pointed out that the solution is not simply a matter of finding someone a house; in fact, that can add to the problem. We are familiar with the reasons for homelessness. Two of the most significant are family breakdown and violence in the home. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden pointed out that young people may become homeless because they are not treated properly at home or in a local authority home. That is a tremendous problem, and homeless young people often lie about their age to get into hostels because some hostels will not take people below a certain age.
	As well as everybody in the House understanding why people become homeless, it is essential that homeless people understand the reasons for their situation and what they have to do to change it. However, people have to work with them to get them to that point. When I was working with the homeless years ago, I heard some very stupid politicians on the television saying that people on the streets, if asked, would say that they did not want to go into a hostel or a home, and preferred to be on the streets. That is wrong, and it misses the point.
	Of course, people who have escaped from a terrible family background, from violence or sexual abuse will find it a relief no longer to be in that situation. It frightens them to think about getting another home, where they will be faced with bills and huge responsibilities, and where they might end up in a situation as bad as the one from which they escaped. However, that does not mean that they prefer to sleep on the streets; it means that the challenges that they face are too much for them, and that can be misinterpreted as a desire to remain on the streets. Those people need help.
	To provide that help, fully to resettle people and to continue to work with them once they have been resettled, takes a great deal of money and expertise. When I was working with the homeless, both those things were missing. We needed more resources to try to get people into hostels and then to get them into their own home. Above all, we needed more understanding of the problem and the expertise to deal with it. I want more resources to be devoted to finding people with that expertise who can help people move from the streets into temporary accommodation and then into their own place. Even then, they will still need help if the resettlement is to be a success and they are not to become homeless again.
	I endorse the point about duplication made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. When I was working with the homeless, there was duplication, but there were also gaps in provision. There was duplication in that there were many agencies involved in homelessness, including the Housing Corporation, local authorities, housing associations, the RSI and charities. Although they overlapped, however, huge gaps were evident in an understanding of the issue and in the will to help the homeless. If the Bill can fill in those gaps and avoid duplication, we will have achieved a great deal.
	I worked in London for three years before I was elected in 1997, and when I went to Tewkesbury people gently reminded me that there was homelessness in Gloucestershire. It then struck me that the RSU, and the earlier initiative, had created a two-tier system. I readily acknowledge that the initiative was quite successful in London, but in other areas of the country it was not in place, or it was not successful, and it fell to the local authorities to do something about homelessness.
	That brings me back to the central point made by my hon. Friend, which is that there must be a better way of making progress than by continuing with the present situation.
	I shall not speak to new clauses 2 and 3 as they have already been dealt with competently and eloquently by my hon. Friends. They are not saying that people with the problems that have been described should not be helped or housed, but that there are many people who have not been caught up in problems with alcohol, crime and drugs, and whose families are intact, and that those people also have rights. I think that my hon. Friends were making those points when speaking to new clauses 2 and 3.

Mark Simmonds: I should like to do the exact opposite of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) by speaking only to new clauses 2 and 3.
	The Bill's provisions are positive and generally acceptable, and I believe that the Government have introduced the Bill with the best of intentions. When meeting housing needs, it is definitely a step forward to increase the number of categories of those who have priority. It would be difficult for anyone to try to defend excluding from those categories someone who is suffering from domestic violence, and I very much support the inclusion of such people in the priority categories.
	I have some concerns about the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). I feel strongly that it is very difficult to defend allocating a house to a prisoner when, as in the previous examples, that house might be appropriate for a young family, perhaps living with parents, who have been waiting on the housing register. Although the Minister seemed to say that such concerns are, in a word, nonsense, many housing officers across the country are extremely nervous about how they can defend such a situation if the Bill is enacted.
	The concern is particularly pertinent in London, where more than 75 per cent. of current vacancies are being allocated to those who are in one of the housing needs categories. Some people believe that, with the extension of the categories that the Bill is proposing, that figure could well increase to 100 per cent. and even beyond. How will local authorities deal with a situation in which they have more homeless people to house than they have houses to allocate?
	New clause 3 is particularly pertinent to me as I represent Skegness, which as many hon. Members know is a holiday resort where many people—particularly those from the east midlands who have spent holidays there—wish to live eventually. Coming from the east midlands myself, I can understand that desire. However, as there is a definitive perception that the people of Skegness are being overridden by outsiders coming into the area, I fully support new clause 3, which establishes a 12-month residency as a very important element in dealing with housing needs. Those who live in Skegness or in other parts of the United Kingdom are not getting the housing that they need without such a qualification, and that situation is a terrible indictment of the current arrangements. I therefore support new clause 3, to change one small part of the Bill that I do not agree with.
	What are the Minister's views on transferring responsibility for 16 and 17-year-olds who become homeless? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said, one of the major deficiencies of our care system is that our public services do not pick up those who leave the system at 16. However, the Bill seems merely to propose transferring the problem, as a matter of compulsion, from local authority social services departments to local authority housing departments. I should think, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, that we have to allow each local authority to exercise discretion in this very sensitive area. There is absolutely no doubt that many of those 16 and 17-year-olds would be dealt with better by social services than they would by the perhaps less sensitive and less understanding housing departments.
	I am concerned also that the Bill does not seem to distinguish between the able-bodied, the disabled and those who have mental health problems when people are thrown out of their home by their parents or by others with whom they are living. There seems to be a clear distinction between those two or three groups of people. Will housing authorities deal with all those groups in the same manner, or will they make special allocations to the disabled and those with mental health problems?
	The Bill does not deal with the fundamental problems of homelessness. We have to strengthen housing advice centres and provide alternatives to social landlords.

Mike Hancock: I question the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for new clause 3. Perhaps he will consider the case of a young person who leaves Skegness to join the Royal Navy but leaves it after five years because it is not suitable for him. Although his last known address was one of Her Majesty's ships or a shore base in the Greater Portsmouth area, his home had been in Skegness. To whom should he look for housing, rather than sleeping rough somewhere?

Mark Simmonds: I do not think that new clause 3 would preclude a solution to that problem.

Mike Hancock: What is the solution?

Mark Simmonds: As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, the local authority should have discretion to address specific issues as they arise, such as the issue that the hon. Gentleman has just raised.

Mike Hancock: Which local authority?

Mark Simmonds: It should be the local authority that is responsible for housing in that particular geographical area; in Skegness, it would be East Lindsey district council.

Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman says that the local authority is responsible, but who determines the responsible local authority? Does the young person in my example have the right to choose between the Portsmouth, Plymouth or Skegness local authority? Who decides?

Mark Simmonds: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. The responsible local authority would be the one in which the social housing is located.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend accept that the local authority that must make the decision is the one to which the applicant applies? The notional applicant about whom the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) has spoken is only 23. Unless he is most unfortunate, it is not likely that his family has disappeared entirely from the scene in Skegness.

Mark Simmonds: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention, and agree with him that responsibility to decide must rest with the local authority to which the individual applies. The point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) certainly does not undermine my support of new clause 3.

Mike Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Simmonds: No; I have given way many times already to the hon. Gentleman. I should like to speak to later groups of amendments.

Sally Keeble: Our consideration of the Bill is similar to "Groundhog Day", as many of the issues have been debated already, both in earlier debates on this Bill and in our debates on the Bill's earlier incarnation. I therefore do not plan to revisit all the detailed regulations and issues about which I spoke earlier.
	I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) will find that many of the issues that he raised, such as the right of temporary workers to accommodation, were addressed in my earlier speech and in current regulations; he will find the answers to his questions if he reads the regulations carefully. I also think that he will have realised from the comments that have been directed to him by various hon. Members that most of the issues that he raised about those groups were spurious.
	The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) said that rough sleepers come in all shapes and sizes. One of the unit's skills has been to gain a better understanding of who is likely to be at risk of ending up on the streets, which previously was not considered consistently.
	The hon. Members for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said that we have had similar schemes before, but we have not. We have not had such rigorous studies of those who sleep on our streets or live in a street culture. That will go a long way towards dealing with the problems of rough sleeping and homelessness.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) was right to say that new clauses 2 and 3 would aggravate the situation for some of those affected. We are consulting on the future role of the rough sleepers unit and its work. I do not wish to preclude anything in that consultation by commenting on her points about London.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had a long debate on the future of the rough sleepers unit, but the Minister has been unable to say anything about the Government's thinking on what might happen at the end of the consultation period. Will the unit linger on? Will the Mayor take responsibility, or will local authorities do so? The Minister has failed to give us any idea.

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking the same question. We are consulting and looking at the options. It is more sensible to find a solution that works rather than one that is time limited. We need an understanding of the valuable work of the unit in getting people off the streets and into accommodation. We must also continue to make sure that the problem does not arise in the first place. We expect to make a statement later this autumn. That provides the hon. Gentleman with as much information as there is about how we will move forward.
	It has been recognised that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has three prisons in his constituency and that he is concerned with particular issues. It would be quite wrong, however, to have a strategy for homelessness based on the experience of one constituency. He also referred to sex offenders. He will find that the arrangements for housing them, and the work with ex-sex offenders, are well catered for in regulations.

Andrew Turner: I am not asking for the whole homelessness policy to be based on the experiences of the Isle of Wight. I am merely asking that the Government take account of those experiences to the same extent as they have taken account of the experiences of the constituency of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), for example. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) has pointed out, the policy appears to be based on metropolitan areas rather than rural and coastal areas.

Sally Keeble: I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman has extracted one category of people and talked about them, whereas the Bill and the regulations that will accompany it, which will be brought back to the House for further discussion, deal with a much wider range of people. I want to go through the priority list to show that the group about whom he has talked is one of a number.
	Under the Bill, housing authorities have a duty to house unintentionally homeless people in priority need. Only certain specified groups have a priority need, so it is not a question of someone wanting to live in a particular area who does not have a place to live. Families that include dependent children or a pregnant woman, and people who are vulnerable because of old age, illness, disability or other special reason are included. If a main duty is owed, the authority must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant for at least two years.
	The order, which has been discussed, extends protection to several new groups: 16 and 17-year-olds; 18 to 21-year-olds who were formerly in care; other vulnerable care leavers; those who are vulnerable as a result of institutionalisation, serving in the armed forces or being in custody; and those who are vulnerable as a result of fleeing harassment or domestic violence. That is a long list; it is not simply a question of ex-offenders.
	The common strand of vulnerability—not whether someone has been in prison—is what local housing authorities need to consider when assessing whether someone is a priority need for accommodation. Not all ex-offenders will be vulnerable. The order will emphasise the importance of authorities assessing whether ex-offenders are vulnerable as a result of a period in prison.

Andrew Turner: Is it not evident that I have not tried to amend the whole of the list, but have concentrated on one or two specific groups on it, who—in one case at least—do not have long-standing connections with the constituency? Prisoners can be dealt with under the new clause by their place of origin, not their place of release.

Sally Keeble: I have dealt with the issues of the period of residence and of qualification. However, the hon. Gentleman needs to consider the fact that housing is a key factor in the successful reintegration of ex-offenders and reducing the rates of reoffending. Work is continuing across Departments to make sure that we get better resettlement outcomes for all ex-offenders. They are just one group. In addition, the priority is short-term accommodation and not the allocation of a permanent home. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that a single ex-offender who is vulnerable will not be looking for the same type of accommodation as a family. The hon. Gentleman's attempt to play off one category of homeless person against another is not only divisive, but completely unfounded.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has been very generous in this long debate. She has given the House the interesting information that the various groups covered by the Bill will be determined according to their vulnerability. Ex-offenders could be particularly vulnerable. Will she say more about how that vulnerability will be determined, and by whom? Will it be determined by the prison authorities or the probation authorities? Will the local authority have a role? It seems critical that the local authority has a role—after all, it must provide the temporary accommodation.

Sally Keeble: rose—

Mike Hancock: Will the Minister give way?

Sally Keeble: I will take the hon. Gentleman's intervention first, and then deal with both together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must deal with one intervention at a time. The next one may not be on the same subject.

Sally Keeble: I apologise.
	Decisions on allocation are made by local authorities. Guidance will be issued, in the light of which they will have to take their decisions.

Mike Hancock: There are a number of issues concerning the long list that the Minister read out. Is there a time limit for local authorities to accept some of the groups? Will some of those she mentioned—ex-service men or persons coming out of care—be deemed to fall within such a time limit? Will guidance be issued to local authorities on the way in which they must choose, or not choose, to interpret the order?

Sally Keeble: The order will come back to the House and there will be guidance on how it is to be implemented. A number of those groups would not be looking for the same type of accommodation as others.
	We have dealt with many of the detailed issues concerning who would qualify for housing under the new arrangements and how they would be dealt with. I regret some of the language that has been used in this debate. I recognise that the hon. Members for Wealden and for Tewkesbury have practical experience in the matter, and I pay tribute to them for that, but let me emphasise to the hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) that women do not get pregnant just to get council properties. We need to move away from such language about women and about outsiders coming into a place looking for accommodation.

Mark Simmonds: Will the Minister give way?

Sally Keeble: No, I want to carry on.
	The legislation provides a good balance of compassion for people who need housing, and pragmatic rules that a council can apply. The regulations take into account the need to provide housing for vulnerable people, as well as issues of sustainable housing and communities. Many of the proposals in the Bill will be supplemented by other Government programmes. I am thinking in particular of the supporting people programme, which will further strengthen the provision for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
	I welcome the support given by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). I urge the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton–Brown) to withdraw the motion. The new clauses are not helpful. They are divisive and could damage some of the very good work done in introducing the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This has been a very useful debate. It has brought out the fact that the fall in the number of rough sleepers is one of the very few bright lights in the current homelessness scene. It has also become apparent that there is a willingness among both Government and Opposition Members to see the rough sleepers unit move on.
	I was especially interested in what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said. She initially argued that the unit had done a good job—indeed, it has—and should be allowed to continue in its present role. She then suddenly realised that what she was saying was at odds with her party's policy and decided that perhaps it should go to the Mayor instead. In saying that, she implicitly acknowledged that the present policy is not perfect. She said that the main burden in London is shouldered by four boroughs. Surely, then, those four boroughs are the ones that really know what the problems are, and that exemplifies the fact that the ideal solution would be for local authorities to be given the responsibility.

Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has a very selective power of hearing and of retaining what he has heard. The point that I was trying to make was that at present in London—this could continue in the future—the main burden is being borne by four boroughs at the centre. I argue that the excellent work done by the rough sleepers unit should perhaps be handed on to the Mayor and the GLA because they are best placed to create a strategy that incorporates all the effective work that is being done in London. Outer-London boroughs, which are very happy to shunt their rough sleepers into the centre of the city, could no longer pretend that they do not have a rough sleeping problem.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With respect, the hon. Lady is trying to dance on the head of a pin. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) said, it was our party's initiative that spawned the rough sleepers unit and began to reduce the problem, but it has become apparent to Members that it needs to be tackled further. There is a serious problem of drugs that needs to be tackled by all the partners involved, among which the local authority is one of the most proactive, especially with local drug action teams.
	We need to deal with problems associated with mental health, again involving all the relevant agencies. There is a particular need for short-stay acute beds, for example—day hospital beds are in short supply—and we all agree that it is unacceptable for people with mental health problems simply to be swept out on to the streets to become rough sleepers.

Charles Hendry: Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at our not having the result of the ministerial review of the RSU before we conclude our discussions on the Bill? Is it not likely that the report is already sitting on Ministers' desks, given that the Minister has said that it will be published in the autumn, which does not leave all that many days or weeks? Would not it have been rather more helpful for our deliberations on the Bill if we had been able to read and take account of it in advance?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Yes. I am going to be quite critical here. It is somewhat typical of this Government to ignore the democratic voice of Parliament and announce a policy some little while after we have had a debate here. It would have been helpful, even if she had not finally made up her mind, if the Minister had at least given us some parameters of her thinking. If she had said, "I'm fairly certain that the rough sleepers unit is going to continue", we would all have understood where the Government were coming from, and if she had said, "We're looking closely at whether it should be devolved to local authorities" or regional assemblies, or the Mayor—or whatever—we would have had some sympathy with that, but to respond to a serious proposal from the Opposition without giving us any pointers as to where the consultation is leading is somewhat unhelpful.
	If the Minister would like to intervene and give us some pointers, I would be only too delighted to give way. The fact that she does not want to intervene tells me that she does not want to give us any information. That is why we have to be critical.
	I took on board very carefully the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury. It is always interesting to find out something new about one's colleagues. I was especially interested to hear that he had run a hostel. This House benefits greatly from such specialist experience and knowledge gained outside. I noted in particular his comments about young people who are homeless as a result of violent or sexual abuse in the home. That is very important. Again, as with so many aspects of the problem of rough sleeping, it is the local authority that has the resources and the contacts to deal with the problems.
	I sincerely believe that, in time, as the rough sleepers unit starts to deal with fewer people, we should move on and think of how best to deal with the problems.
	Everyone would recognise that, as is often the case with amendments and new clauses tabled by individual hon. Members, the wording of new clauses 2 and 3 may not have been perfect, but the sentiment behind them has found accord throughout the House. No one could deny that the local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight faces a significant problem because of the three prisons that it contains. Rather towards the end of the debate, the Government helpfully informed us that they are introducing secondary legislation to deal with institutionalised offenders requiring advice on homelessness and temporary housing.
	I assume that today's announcement is what was trailed in the Green Paper, "The Way Forward for Housing", as long ago as December 2000. I see the Minister nodding. If that is not what was trailed in the document and more such regulations are to be introduced, perhaps she could intervene now and make that clear.

Sally Keeble: I have made it clear.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I assume that there will not be more regulation on that subject, then, apart from the order that has been announced today.
	It is helpful that we have been told that people with an institutionalised background will be considered under the order, especially on the grounds of vulnerability, as will other groups named in the order. However, the Minister's inability to answer my question about how vulnerability will be determined is not helpful. That seems a key part of the order, and if the Minister cannot tell us how it will operate, that makes things difficult.
	If the Government have not yet decided what will happen, may I suggest that a partnership approach should be taken? As I said in my intervention on the Minister, the prison authorities would have to be involved, because they would know about the detailed behaviour of the prisoner while he was in prison. The probation officer is also likely to be involved, because that person will have supervised the prisoner's early release. The local authority should be involved, too, because it is likely to have to give advice and provide temporary housing if the prisoner asks for it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight must speak for himself, but I suspect that if such a partnership approach were adopted, it would allay his fears considerably.

Andrew Turner: indicated assent

Sally Keeble: The hon. Member for Cotswold was a party to the previous discussions. In conjunction with the Bill, an order to extend the categories of homeless households is being introduced and is being consulted on now. That is not a new announcement; the order was discussed repeatedly while we were debating the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is indeed helpful, but, as I say, we would like to know a little more detail about how the order will operate. I do not wish to be churlish: the Minister has been helpful, my hon. Friend's amendment has been worth while, and I hope that the debate will reassure him and his local authority.
	I do not pretend that the wording of new clause 3 is perfect. As I understand it, its import would be to ensure that people with a local connection or background should not always be bypassed in the queue by other groups that the Government deem to be a housing priority, especially under the order. I hope that the Minister will consider that subject carefully, because I am not sure that it is covered in the Bill. My hon. Friend was therefore right to table his new clause to probe and encourage the debate that we have had this evening.
	We have not had any of the answers that we want about the rough sleepers unit, which will be the subject of a debate on another occasion, but we have probed the Government as far and as hard as we can today, and we have had some useful debates and answers on new clauses 2 and 3. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Accommodation during reviews of homelessness decisions

' After section 202 of the 1996 Act (right to request review of decision) there is inserted—
	"202A Section 202: reviews 
	(1) This section applies where an applicant has the right to request a review of a decision by an authority or authorities under section 202.
	(2) If the applicant is dissatisfied with a decision by the authority—
	(a) not to exercise their power to continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review under section 188;
	(b) in a case where the authority have secured that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation under section 190(2)(a), to cease to secure that accommodation is so available before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 of the Act has expired (or, if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant);
	(c) not to exercise their power to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review, under section 200(5) or;
	(d) to exercise their power under either section 188 or section 200(5) for a limited time ending before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 of the Act has expired (or, if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant), or, in either case, to cease exercising their power before that time,
	he may appeal to the county court against the decision.
	(3) An appeal under this section may not be brought after the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 of the Act has expired (or, if sooner, after the date on which an appeal is brought).
	(4) On an appeal under this section the court—
	(a) may order the authority to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation until the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 of the Act has expired (or such earlier time as the court may specify); and
	(b) shall confirm or quash the decision appealed against,
	and in considering whether to confirm or quash the decision the court shall apply the principles applied by the High Court on an application for judicial review.
	(5) If the court quashes the decision it may order the authority to exercise any of the powers mentioned in subsection (2) above in the applicant's case for such period as may be specified in the order.
	(6) An order under subsection (5)—
	(a) may only be made if the court is satisfied that failure to exercise the power in accordance with the order would substantially prejudice the applicant's ability to pursue the review against the authority's decision in his case;
	(b) may not specify any period ending after the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 of the Act has expired.".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 22.
	Amendment No. 21, in schedule 1, page 15, line 23, at end insert—
	'16A. For section 210(1) of the 1996 Act (suitability of accommodation) there is substituted—
	"In determining for the purposes of this Part whether accommodation is suitable for a person, accommodation shall only be regarded as suitable if—
	(a) it is not overcrowded (within the meaning of section 324 of the Housing Act 1985);
	(b) it is fit for the number of occupants and it has adequate means of escape from fire (within the meaning of sections 352 and 365 of the Housing Act 1985); and
	(c) in the view of the authority it is fit for human habitation (within the meaning of section 604 of the Housing Act 1985).".'.

Don Foster: We have had some fairly lengthy debates on the first three new clauses, so you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and, no doubt, the rest of the House—will be pleased to know that notwithstanding the significant enthusiasm in the House for the Bill, hon. Members from all parties have been fairly restrained in the number of issues that they have sought to raise by tabling amendments for us to deliberate on this evening.
	I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) said earlier—that the Liberal Democrats are delighted that our deliberations on the Bill are coming to an end, and that it will shortly pass to another place. Although we wish to make some minor amendments to it, we wish it good speed there, so that it can be implemented as soon as possible.
	As I said, there are several minor areas in which we seek to make improvements. That is why we tabled new clause 4 and amendment No. 21. I am delighted to see Government amendment No. 22 included in this string of amendments, and were there to be a vote on it—I am sure that there will not be—we would support the Government.
	New clause 4 and amendment No. 21 deal with rather different issues, so I shall discuss each in turn. New clause 4 concerns people's right to access to justice at all stages of the operation of the homelessness legislation. Unfortunately, that is a complex body of legislation, which includes many different stages in the consideration of a request for accommodation by a homeless person.
	At the later stages of the process, the local authority can determine somebody's eligibility for assistance, and at an even later stage, it can determine what priority should be given to such a person when his or her eligibility has been acknowledged. The Government have already accepted that at those two later stages it is right and proper that the applicant should be able to appeal against a decision that goes against him or her. They have also decided that during the appeal process an applicant should be able to seek to obtain accommodation. If the local authority fails to provide accommodation, the applicant can appeal against that judgment, too.
	During our deliberations on that complex issue, the Government accepted that the right court to determine whether someone should have accommodation during the appeal process was not the High Court, because that involves a remote judicial process, but the county court. When they accepted the content of some of the amendments moved by Liberal Democrats, although they slightly amended it, the Government argued that it was appropriate that a local court with knowledge of the area should make the decision.
	My new clause suggests that the same procedure should apply at another stage of the consideration of a homeless person's application. In the very early stages, someone has to go to a local authority and seek to be treated as homeless. That precedes all detailed discussions about eligibility and levels of priority.
	In section 202 of the Housing Act 1996, there already exists a provision to enable someone whom the local authority is not prepared to treat as homeless to ask for an internal review of that decision. That is not affected by the Bill. Also within existing legislation, the local authority has the power to offer accommodation to such a person pending the outcome of the internal review. Unfortunately, all the research shows that local authorities rarely make use of that power, and many people need to fight a battle for a review while remaining homeless. Nevertheless, a right to seek assistance remains and to have a judicial review of the decision by the local authority not to provide accommodation.
	The Government have accepted that, at later stages in the procedure, judicial review in the High Court is an inappropriate procedure. They have accepted that a county court is better placed to make the decision. Therefore, new clause 4 would substitute the county court procedure for the High Court procedure.
	It has been argued that the change would mean a significant increase in the number of internal reviews required. Indeed, the Local Government Association misunderstood the new clause and thought it meant that anybody who requested an internal review would be given an automatic entitlement to accommodation. That is wrong. All that would happen is that the individual would have the right to apply to the county court for consideration of the decision not to provide accommodation. The individual would not be provided with accommodation during that time.
	It has also been suggested that the change from High Court to county court—some would argue that the county court might be more sympathetic to homeless people—would make it more likely that the decision would go in favour of the homeless person and require the local authority to provide accommodation. That, too, is incorrect, because the county court would be required to use exactly the same test as the High Court.
	The new clause is not a charter to ensure that any homeless person will be able to prolong their case in an attempt to obtain accommodation. It merely seeks to change the location of consideration of the issue from the High Court to the county court. The only change would be that justice would be easier to access by the homeless person, and those who have argued differently—such as the LGA—have misunderstood the purpose of the new clause.
	Amendment No. 21 is about the suitability of accommodation, especially temporary. The current requirement is that accommodation provided for homeless households should be suitable. However, local authorities must have regard only for housing standards, overcrowding and physical conditions, which does not mean that accommodation has to meet those standards. Therefore, homeless households are often placed in temporary accommodation that is overcrowded or unfit, a fact that the Government acknowledge in several documents, including the most recent, "Homelessness Strategies: A Good Practice Guide". I am delighted that that document could be rushed out in time for our debate today. In it, the Government state, in reference to the most usual form of temporary accommodation, that bed- and-breakfast hotels
	"are almost always the worst option for temporary accommodation, offering the poorest conditions at the highest cost."
	Real concern is felt about the quality and suitability of accommodation and the amendment seeks to make it a requirement that such accommodation meets some agreed standards on overcrowding, availability of escape routes and being fit for human habitation within the meaning of existing legislation.
	At the end of March 2001, some 75,000 households were in temporary accommodation. In areas with high demand for housing, homeless people can spend many months in so-called temporary accommodation before being offered long-term housing. As a result of the inadequacy of current legislation, including the Bill, many households may continue to be forced to endure poor housing conditions for long periods without a requirement that temporary accommodation meets specific standards.
	No doubt the Government will say in response that they have recently established the bed-and-breakfast unit, and that is welcome. The Government may also say that moves to establish standards now are premature, because we will soon have legislation about the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. The Government's response may be to acknowledge the problem and say that the solution may be reached via other mechanisms—the work of the bed-and-breakfast unit and the HMO legislation. I hope that if the Government are not prepared to accept amendment No. 21, they will give the House a clear understanding of how they will, in the near future, end a situation in which so many people live in substandard accommodation. I have raised two separate issues and I look forward with considerable interest to the Government's response.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will recall that in Committee on 10 July we had a long canter around the course discussing which part of the eligibility and suitability regulations should be capable of being referred to the High Court under judicial review and which part should be capable of being referred to the county court. I have read the reply to that debate from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and I am now even more sure that the hon. Gentleman was right to raise the issue. Considerable confusion exists about which judicial route will be available for which part of the priority housing system.
	Eligibility for and suitability of housing are both matters that should be determined by the county court. There is an element of overlap and the same court may be asked to adjudicate on both issues, which would streamline the process for the local authority and for the homeless person who is appealing its decision. We all know that the judicial review is a slow, cumbersome and expensive procedure and the homeless person has first to apply to the High Court to be granted leave to seek judicial review. The poor homeless person has to employ a lawyer, possibly without the benefit of legal aid, to prepare a case for his eligibility to apply for judicial review and a High Court judge has to give judgment on that. Some months later, the judicial review itself is carried out. Given the often charged situations in which homeless people live, that is most unsatisfactory.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the clear support that he is giving to the new clause. However, so that he does not mislead the House, I remind him that the small issue covered by the new clause is whether a local authority is right to deny accommodation to a homeless person whose local authority has deemed that it is unwilling even to treat that person as homeless. It is a small issue, although vital for the individual, and that is why it is appropriate that the county court should make the decision.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely accept what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says. I think that my simpler language was compatible with his more detailed legal language. My point about eligibility being subject to judicial review covers the point that he has just made. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions can give the House a more cogent reason for having two judicial routes than he gave in Committee on 10 July.
	We all have a great deal of sympathy for people in housing that is not suitable within the meaning of the legislation because it is overcrowded or does not meet health and safety requirements. However, I think that it will be difficult for authorities to meet the exacting requirements of amendment No. 21 when it comes to those who are temporarily housed. So although I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's proposal and believe that he is right to bring the matter to the attention of the House, I suspect that in practical terms it is not realistic. We await the Minister's response with interest.

Alan Whitehead: We are condemned for ever to repeat the observation that we appear to be taking part in the film "Groundhog Day". If we were, this would be the third or fourth attempt of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) to secure the undying love of Andie MacDowell.
	New clause 4 would give the county court powers to intervene in a decision by a housing authority not to continue to accommodate a homeless applicant pending a review by the authority of its decision on the homelessness case. Those powers would be similar to those in clause 11 which give the county court the power to intervene in a decision by a housing authority not to exercise its discretion to continue to accommodate an applicant pending an appeal to the county court about the homelessness decision under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996.
	It might be helpful to remind right hon. and hon. Members of the two procedural stages open to an applicant who is dissatisfied with the housing authority's decision on his homelessness case. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bath has mentioned this distinction. First, under section 202 of the 1996 Act, he has the right to request the authority to review its decision. Secondly, if he is dissatisfied with the authority's decision on review, or a decision is not provided within the time allowed, the applicant has the right, under section 204, to appeal to the county court on a point of law.
	Under current provisions, applicants who wish to challenge an authority's decision not to continue to accommodate pending either a review by the authority or an appeal to the county court must seek judicial review of that decision in the High Court. This provides an avenue of redress for applicants in the event that an authority does not make a proper and reasonable decision—for example, by failing to give due consideration to all the circumstances or failing to consider them at all. It is appropriate that the discretion whether applicants should continue to be accommodated once the authority has completed its detailed inquiries and satisfied itself of the facts of the case should rest with the authority.
	Applying to the courts to overturn an authority's decision should be a matter of last resort and should be considered only when it is clear that the authority has not made a proper decision. The nub of the hon. Gentleman's argument is why we have made provision in clause 11 to give the county court the power to intervene when an authority decides not to continue to accommodate an applicant pending an appeal to the county court about the decision on the homelessness case.
	During the Report stage of the Homes Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who was then Minister for Housing and Planning, gave a commitment to the House to consider whether there was a case for giving the county court power to require an authority to accommodate an applicant pending an appeal to that court. That was in response to a new clause moved by the hon. Member for Bath—one of the first of his postcards—which included such provision.
	Following that commitment, my right hon. Friend duly consulted colleagues at the Lord Chancellor's Department and resolved that there would be merit in providing such a power. However, that merit concerned practical considerations. While it remained appropriate in principle for legal challenge of a local authority's decision not to exercise its discretionary power to continue to accommodate to be subject to judicial review in the High Court, there is a persuasive administrative and practical argument for such decisions to be considered in the county court when that court is already considering the substantive decision about the homelessness case on appeal under section 204 of the 1996 Act. In short, it does not make administrative sense for two different courts to consider different decisions about the same homelessness case at the same time.
	The Homes Bill fell when the election was called, but a suitable provision—clause 11—was included in the Homelessness Bill when it was introduced shortly after the election. Meanwhile, the principle of judicial review by the High Court remains valid when applicants wish to challenge an authority's decision not to continue to accommodate pending a review by the authority of the homelessness decision.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister ponder on the illogicality of his remarks? A decision against an authority's decision to continue to house, which is the most important decision faced by a homeless person, has to go through the cumbersome procedure of judicial review. A decision on whether the person is eligible or suitable can go to the county court—a lower court—and can go on a point of law, which will undoubtedly have to go up through the system if it is a complex point of law. What the Minister has said is illogical. Why cannot the decision whether to continue to house be heard by the county court along with the other decisions?

Alan Whitehead: We are discussing the two stages of the process—review and appeal. The administrative case for conflating the two during the course of an appeal was considered and has indeed been put into the legislation. If the hon. Gentleman can be patient, I will explain why the Government cannot accept the tempting notion of symmetry across the board and do not wish to have a county court course of appeal when a review has taken place.
	It is interesting that, during the passage of the Homes Bill, the hon. Member for Bath did not propose a power for the county court to intervene in local authority decisions at the review stage but only at the appeal stage. I put it to him that that might relate more to the collection of postcards than to anything else.
	The homelessness legislation makes clear distinctions between those who have a priority need and those who do not, between those who have become homeless through no fault of their own and those who have brought homelessness upon themselves. It is simply not practical or reasonable to expect local housing authorities to arrange accommodation for everyone every time they have to find a new home.
	Local authorities have an immediate duty to secure accommodation for new applicants where there is reason to believe that they are homeless and in priority need, until the authorities have had a chance to look into the circumstances and satisfy themselves whether there is homelessness, whether it was caused by the applicant, and whether there is priority need. It is right that authorities should have that immediate duty and that applicants should have the right to ask the authority to review any decision that goes against their interests—that they do not have priority need, for example, or became homeless intentionally. However, it is important that authorities should have the discretion to decide whether there is good reason to continue to accommodate applicants during a review, and that that discretionary power should not be undermined by the possibility of routine intervention by the courts. The question is whether there would be a danger of such intervention by a court on a routine, or fairly routine, basis if the present arrangements for review were changed.
	It is important that that discretion should not be undermined by such intervention on a routine basis. I have mentioned that legal challenge to the authority's decision should be made only in exceptional circumstances, for example where the authority has failed to take account of all the circumstances or has acted unlawfully. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the High Court should give permission for applications for judicial review of such decisions to be heard only where there appear to be exceptional circumstances. In the Government's view, that is the right policy and the right approach.

Don Foster: I entirely agree with the Minister that there should not be a system that allows people to intervene routinely. We need an appropriate filtering mechanism in whichever court is ultimately decided on. Will the Minister tell the House whether the filtering mechanism used by the High Court through the judicial review process is different from what would have to be used by the county court? If so, why is the legal opinion wrong that the London borough of Camden ex parte Mohammed is the standard procedure in either case?

Alan Whitehead: I do not have that case to hand. The hon. Gentleman's point about the filtering mechanism is important and I was about to deal with it. If the Government give the county court a power to consider local authority decisions not to continue to accommodate, the county court judges might interpret that policy change as indicating that Parliament has had regard to the Court of Appeal view that applications to the court should be heard only in exceptional circumstances, and has decided that the jurisdiction should be given to a level of court which has no permission stage. In the absence of such a filtering process, there would be no certainty that county court judges would hear only those cases with exceptional circumstances. Although some people in Parliament think that the courts should have the opportunity to intervene in such local authority decisions, almost routinely, the Government are not among them.
	The Government do not consider that the filtering process—as it has been referred to—is the same as between applications to the High Court and applications to the county court. There is, for example, no permission stage for the latter. If homeless applicants had a right to appeal to the county court about decisions not to continue to accommodate them pending a review, all such applications made in accordance with the proper procedure would have to be considered by the court. Shelter's experience, according to their briefing on the Bill, is that in most cases local authorities reverse their decision and agree to accommodate at the point the High Court gives permission for a case to proceed and grants an injunction requiring the authority to accommodate. That demonstrates just how effective the possibility of court intervention is. Most authorities will decide that it is not worth the cost of fighting the proceedings—regardless of the merits of the case. I am concerned that the possibility of intervention by the county court in a much larger number of cases would bring similar responses from local authorities which will decide that the cost of continuing to accommodate is preferable to the legal costs of fighting the case.
	For those reasons, the Government do not consider that the tempting case for symmetry is made. There are substantial differences between the High Court and the county court in the filtering mechanisms, so we cannot accept the new clause.
	On amendment No. 21 and the issue of housing standards, I am grateful to hon. Members for raising the matter. Of course it is true that overcrowding and poor standards are unacceptable, but it will take some time to address those deep-seated problems. Pressure on housing, especially in London and the south, is growing. Many households live in unacceptable conditions.
	The Government have made a start in addressing the problems of poor quality housing stock and insufficient supply of affordable accommodation in some areas. We have, for example, doubled the Housing Corporation's budget for new affordable housing from 2001–02 to 2003–04—an extra £872 million. We have set a target over three years of 100,000 new or improved homes for low-cost rent or ownership. We have doubled the programme of affordable housing in small rural settlements, from 800 in 2000–01 to 1,600 in 2003–04. We have increased resources for local authority investment from £750 million in 1997–98 to £2.5 billion by 2003–04. Those increased resources include a new major repairs allowance of £1.6 billion from 2001–02, to encourage efficient management and proper investment in council housing.
	Hon. Members will agree that, taken together, those measures will bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010—at least, that is the target. They will improve the supply of affordable housing in areas where it is most needed, and promote sustainable home ownership and a healthy private rented sector.

Oona King: On the point about costs being borne by local authorities, will my hon. Friend assure us that those costs will be closely monitored? The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has estimated that the costs will be £8 million. Many London boroughs have reason to believe that the costs will be far in excess of that. I fully welcome the provisions, but I beg my hon. Friend to realise that they need to be funded.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend's point is well made. Those costs will be closely monitored. It is not intended that there should be arbitrary cost over-runs for no benefit. Certainly, the operation of the process will be closely considered and monitoring will continue. I take my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that she will agree that none of these things will happen overnight, even with our substantial programme of investment and new provision, but we are making progress and we know that more needs to be done.
	The amendment would of course strengthen the duty on authorities, but that would not tackle the real problem. It would not increase the supply of suitable accommodation on the ground, and it would make no real contribution to the efforts being made physically to improve the standards of existing accommodation. Furthermore, there must be some concern that in the immediate term it could add to the difficulties that many local authorities in high demand areas are experiencing in securing sufficient accommodation to discharge their statutory obligations to homeless people. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made that point.
	The issues of fitness and decent standards are important, and have been neglected by previous Administrations for far too long. They are real issues, but they must be addressed by devoting real resources to finding real solutions. That is what the Government are doing.
	There is consensus that the housing fitness standard in section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 no longer reflects a modern understanding of the health and safety risks within dwellings. I trust that the hon. Member for Bath will hear this point with warmth and approbation. We are planning to replace the standard with a housing health and safety rating system, which will apply a modern, risk-based approach to assessing housing conditions. We have consulted widely on that proposal and we are currently carrying out further work to strengthen the system and ensure its robustness.
	We intend that the housing health and safety rating system should apply to all dwellings and that it should underpin our proposed scheme for licensing houses in multiple occupation—a point raised by the hon. Gentleman. We have made a commitment to legislate on that proposed scheme.
	We also see provisions to enable the selective licensing of private landlords in areas of low housing demand as being part of such legislation. Those measures, on which we are currently holding consultations, would give local authorities the power to tackle the problem of unscrupulous landlords who will not meet minimum standards of management.
	All those reforms will secure better standards of accommodation, and we plan to legislate for them as soon as we have a suitable opportunity.
	As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), has already given an undertaking to review the current overcrowding provisions, which are extremely outdated. As she said on another occasion, it is unacceptable that families in overcrowded accommodation should have to resort to such ingenious but desperate measures as converting airing cupboards into make-do bedrooms. At this stage, I cannot say what the outcome of the review will be, but I can give an assurance that the Government are determined to address poverty in all its manifestations and will take the necessary steps to do so.
	On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Bath to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment No. 22 is a technical Government amendment intended to clarify the right of a homeless applicant to request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered by a local authority. Clause 8(2) was drafted on the basis that, under current law as interpreted by the courts, section 202(1)(f) of the 1996 Act provides that homeless applicants can ask for a review of the authority's decision about the suitability of accommodation offered under part VI of the 1996 Act. However, it has subsequently come to our attention that the Court of Appeal ruled that the right to seek a review of such a decision does not flow from section 202(1)(f), as accommodation offered under part VI is not accommodation offered as a discharge of any duty under part VII. The court ruled that, in effect, applicants can ask for a review of the suitability of a part VI offer by requesting a review of the authority's decision on what duty, if any, is owed them under section 193. That will include any decision that a section 193 duty is no longer owed because the applicant has refused a part VI offer which the local authority considers suitable. Under that ruling, the right to request a review in such a case currently flows from section 202(1)(b).
	Government amendment No. 22 will clarify the position by explicitly providing that section 202(1)(f) gives applicants the right to request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered under part 6, as well as accommodation offered as a discharge of the section 193 duty. I commend the amendment to the House and trust that the hon. Member for Bath will withdraw new clause 4.

Don Foster: When the Minister said that he hoped we would withdraw our amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) whispered in my ear and suggested that I say, "We are prepared to withdraw ours if you will withdraw yours." However, we have no desire whatsoever for the Minister to withdraw his amendment; indeed, we support it wholeheartedly.
	I found the Minister's comments on new clause 4 and amendment No. 21 as disappointing as the very similar response that he gave several months ago. However, I am delighted that at last he and I understand the nature of the issue that we are tackling in a complex part of a complex piece of legislation; it is simply somebody's ability to challenge the decision of a local authority not to provide housing during the internal review of an original decision on whether or not somebody should be treated as homeless. The difference between us is whether the opportunity to challenge that decision should be granted in the High Court or the county court. The Minister, justifying the only reason why it should continue to be the county court, claimed that the county court has a better filtering process and will filter out more unjust cases than the High Court.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman said that the county court has a better filtering mechanism, but the Government are making the opposite case.

Don Foster: I apologise. The Minister made the case that the High Court has a better filtering process than the county court. When I challenged him as to whether he had any reason for believing that the county court's filtering mechanism is different from that of the High Court, specifically referring to the Court of Appeal's judgment in the case of the London borough of Camden ex parte Mohammed, he said that he did not even know the case, which sets out the filtering process that would apply equally to the High Court or county court, whichever is used.
	The Minister's justification for his decision is entirely wrong. In addition, he will be well aware that the vast majority—99 per cent—of those who make an application will need to do so with the support of legal aid. There is an earlier filtering process which, of course, is the Legal Services Commission and will apply whether the High Court or county court is used.

Alan Whitehead: In fact, I said that I did not have the Mohammed case to hand—but a piece of paper has miraculously come into my possession. It talks about the effect of the Mohammed case, which sets out the criteria but does not, and cannot, alter the procedures. I was talking about procedures; there is no filtering procedure in the county court, but applications to the High Court require the permission of the court which, ordinarily, is a paper process. There is therefore a difference in procedure, which remains despite the Mohammed judgment.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister; we are gradually getting to the difference between us. It may be sensible for me to take the Minister's advice and offer to withdraw the new clause to allow time for lawyers representing both sides of the argument to look at the issue. However, I shall just leave the Minister with one thought before doing so. If we end up in a situation where there is little difference between the two court procedures, and if the Government have their way and stick with the High Court procedure, we will deny justice to many people, as their only recourse will be a High Court procedure in either London or Cardiff, which is extremely difficult to secure and flies in the face of everything else that the Government are seeking to achieve in making access to justice easier and modernising the court process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the filtering mechanism that the Minister talked about is coded-speak for denying applicants who are refused continued housing by the local authority access to an appeal? Does he agree that if an applicant were refused leave to go to judicial review by the High Court or, indeed, legal aid, and took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, the Government would almost certainly be forced to alter the procedure?

Don Foster: I would not wish to second-guess decisions by the European Court of Human Rights on such complex matters. However, the hon. Gentleman is correct in the thrust of his remark that the clause, if unamended, will deny justice to some people.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, because these points are important.
	The county court can give a decision much quicker than either permission to go for judicial review or, indeed, the review procedure itself. County court judges are used to interpreting the law to decide whether or not somebody has a justified case. I repeat the points made by the Minister: the reasons for going to the county court on the grounds of unsuitable accommodation include points of law which are bound to end up in a higher court in any case.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is taking the issue a step further, to deliberations that may well be made on appeal, rather than in the internal review which we are discussing. We would perhaps be ruled out of order were we to get into those issues.
	There is genuine concern about denying some people justice; if jurisdiction stays with the High Court, that makes it much more difficult for people to access. On the more general point made by the hon. Gentleman, it is worth reflecting on the period that local authorities have for internal review. Leaving aside the 21 days that applicants have before they put in their request, there is a subsequent 56 days before local authorities have to make their decision, which is a long time for people—who may have a good case and who are denied access to accommodation to help them during the period of request—to remain homeless.
	On amendment No. 21, I am delighted with part of the Minister's response. He said, as I suggested he might, that these matters may be best left until a later stage, after we have considered the workings of the bed-and-breakfast unit and have had an opportunity to study the proposed legislation in respect of licensing, not least of houses in multiple occupation.
	The Minister might do well to choose his words a little more carefully at times. To suggest, as he did, that standards in relation to overcrowding and so on had been neglected by previous Governments for too long is a rather lame excuse for a Government who have been in power for several years and who should have addressed the matter sooner. Nevertheless, they are now doing so. I accept that their way of going about it is slightly different from the way I would have proposed and preferred, but we look forward to further debates on the matter in another place, when the Government will no doubt be able to give us even more information about their plans. In the light of the answers given and of the continuing need for legal advice to both sides, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Co-operation between registered social landlords and local housing authorities

'For section 170 of the 1996 Act (co-operation between registered social landlords and local housing authorities) there is substituted—
	"Where a local housing authority so request, a registered social landlord shall co–operate in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authority's allocation scheme, if to do so is compatible with their constitution and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions.".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 13, page 8, line 12, leave out from beginning to "(7)" in line 13.
	No. 12, in page 8, line 15, leave out "or (b)".
	No. 13, in page 8, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 45.
	No. 14, in page 9, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 10.
	No. 15, in page 9, line 14, leave out from "(5)" to end of line 16.
	No. 16, in page 9, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 25.
	No. 19, in clause 15, page 11, line 1, after "any", insert "deliberate, wilful, or negligent.".
	No. 7, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—
	'(d) any record of behaviour of a person (or a member of his household) which has affected the terms of a previous tenancy he has held.'.
	No. 17, in page 11, line 6, after "given", insert—
	'or allocation to be made'.
	No. 18, in page 11, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert—
	'(2D) The only behaviour which may be regarded by the authority as unacceptable for the purposes of subsection (2C)(a) is—
	(a) behaviour of the person concerned which would (if he were a secure tenant of the authority) entitle the authority to a possession order under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) on any ground mentioned in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (other than ground 8); or
	(b) behaviour of a member of his household which would (if he were a person residing with a secure tenant of the authority) entitle the authority to such a possession order.'.
	No. 20, in page 11, line 37, leave out from "has" to "him" and insert "is informed".

Don Foster: I begin with an apology to the House. Because of the way in which the Chair has chosen to group amendments for deliberation today, it is inevitable that a number of very different issues have ended up in the same group. This group contains four separate and distinct issues. Instead of my speaking on the entire group, were my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he might give my voice a rest and the House a rest from having to hear it.
	When she responds to new clause 5, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), will no doubt remind the House that this is old ground that we have been over on several occasions. For anyone coming new to this "Groundhog Day" event, the issue is simple. Under the Bill, local authorities are required to develop a homelessness strategy, although in its delivery they will be increasingly reliant on various housing associations and registered social landlords.
	As hon. Members who served on the Committee know, it is estimated that by 2004 more than 50 per cent. of all social housing will be in the hands of housing associations or registered social landlords. It is therefore agreed in all parts of the House that close co-operation between a housing authority and a housing association is crucial. The question is how we ensure such co-operation.
	New clause 5 is one way of ensuring that by writing into the Bill a specific requirement for registered social landlords to co-operate with the local authority, unless to do so would be incompatible with their constitution or would in some way unduly prejudice the discharge of their other functions. The Government have suggested an alternative way forward, by making sure that the Housing Corporation has strong enough teeth to ensure that the housing associations for which it has responsibility comply with requests that they work closely with housing authorities.
	In the Standing Committee, the Minister said:
	"I share the concern that has been expressed that registered social landlords should play their part, but I believe that that will best be achieved through revised guidance and enhanced regulation by the Housing Corporation".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 July 2001; c. 17.]
	I have no doubt that in her response she will tell the House that she still believes that that is the appropriate way forward. Perhaps she can tell the House a little about her consultation and discussion with, and perhaps exhortations to, the Housing Corporation, and assure me that we will end up with clear statutory arrangements to ensure close co-operation between registered social landlords and the Housing Corporation.
	Before the Minister responds, however, may I raise three points which, I hope, will inform her deliberations with the Housing Corporation? First, in respect of the number of lettings currently taking place, there has been a significant reduction in the share of new lettings to homeless households. That has been in decline for the past decade. In 1992–95, 25 per cent. of new lettings went to homeless households. By 1999–2000, the figure had fallen to just 11 per cent. I am well aware that there are many complex reasons for that figure, but it shows that the RSL sector as a whole is not doing enough to support the Government's policy objectives. I hope that that will form part of the Minister's discussion with the Housing Corporation.
	Secondly, on possessions, recent figures from the Lord Chancellor's Department show that social landlords were granted more than 26,000 possession orders in 2000. That figure is up by 12 per cent. from the previous year and has more than doubled in the past six years. Again, there are complex reasons for that, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the underlying reasons for the increase are the demands of meeting performance indicators on managing rent arrears and delays in processing housing benefit.
	There is no doubt that the increased use of possession orders is causing unnecessary homelessness. Of course there is a place for possession orders, but far too often they are used as the first, rather than the last, resort. I note with interest that in the latest edition of "Roof", Shelter launches its "Evictions: who's counting?" campaign to get more detailed information about the problem. I hope that the Minister will look into that matter, too.
	Thirdly, we will consider later in this group of amendments the question of suitability to be a tenant. That should form part of the discussions with the Housing corporation. It is important that the new regulatory guidance is consistent with the framework in the Bill for allocating accommodation, particularly in circumstances where applicants can be deemed to be unsuitable tenants. Throughout our earlier deliberations, Ministers have been keen to stress that a high legal test should be applied. A registered social landlord cannot be allowed to decide that it does not like the behaviour of a particular tenant. It is important the guidance produced by the Housing Corporation mirrors the high tests that apply to local authorities.
	Amendments Nos. 11 to 18 relate to what has often been called the neighbour from hell. I stress that I do not believe we should take away from local authorities the discretion to take account of antisocial behaviour, nor discretion in factors that pose a threat to fellow tenants. I also believe that local authorities should have discretion to frame their allocation schemes to reflect local circumstances. I accept those matters in their entirety. Many local authorities have a real problem to grapple with, and in so doing they face many challenges. However, the Government were right to state in a number of policy documents that housing need must be given a high level of consideration when dealing with the problem of homelessness. The purpose of the amendments is to remove the issue of behaviour from the decision whether a person is deemed to be eligible. There is no intention to remove the issue of behaviour at later stages when the crucial issue of priority will have to be decided.
	It is vital that local authorities are able, as is proposed in legislation, to consider the issue of suitability in terms of prior behaviour when determining priority, or whether there should be no priority. However, that should not happen at the first stage of considering eligibility. If at the first decision-making process—that of eligibility—the issue of behaviour can be taken into account, it is possible for a local authority to determine immediately that a person is not eligible without having any regard for the housing need of the applicant. It would be especially worrying if that were to happen in circumstances where the applicant is not an individual but a member of a homeless family. Perhaps one individual in the family has behaved in such a way that at a later stage the authority may use it to deny the family priority. At the earlier stage there would be no opportunity for the local authority even to bother to make an assessment of the housing need of every member of the family.
	I hope that the Minister will recognise that we are not seeking to water down the clear arrangements that have been put in place following earlier discussions to enable local authorities to take behaviour into account. The tabling of the amendments is a move to ensure that something that is close to the Government's heart and to the heart of Liberal Democrats is taken into account. Housing need must be addressed.
	If my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be keen to speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 20. We are concerned that there is inconsistency in the Bill in respect of behavioural issues. It is bizarre that when we come to consider various decisions on the levels of support that are to be given, we find it has been decided that there should be a set of clearly defined strategies for determining whether certain behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable, and what impact that will have on someone's likelihood of receiving support. In determining the level of priority—one small piece of the procedure—we move from having a set of listed criteria to stating suddenly that the local authority can take any behaviour into account. That is flying in the face of the logic that many of us have discussed many times in earlier stages of the Bill's consideration.
	Amendment No. 20 raises an issue that the Minister and I have debated on many occasions. That issue is whether, when a decision is made about the priority to be given to an applicant, the local authority should have a duty to notify the applicant of the decision, as it has in earlier stages of the process. There has been confusion during many earlier debates about the significance of priority. I say that it is vital. If a local authority decides that someone is eligible but has no priority for housing, he or she will not be helped. If it decides that an individual is eligible but that he or she has low priority, that person will find that there is no opportunity to be helped. That is the situation in many parts of the country. I hope that it will be accepted that priority is an important issue.
	As I have said, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay will wish to amplify one or two of the points that I have raised. I hope that we shall have more interesting responses from Ministers to these amendments than to the previous string of amendments.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Amendment No. 7 adds the following clause:
	"(d) any record of behaviour of a person (or a member of his household) which has affected the terms of a previous tenancy he has held."
	The amendment relates to allocation schemes that local authorities have to consider.
	I broadly agree with what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said about amendment No. 18, which is similar to No. 7. However, I believe that amendment No. 7 is more direct and to the point. He said that there is a real problem with which local authorities must grapple, and I entirely agree. He added that housing need must be given a high priority in dealing with homelessness. A balance must be struck.
	In considering the allocation of scarce houses, local authorities should be given a power to consider the previous behaviour of a tenant, and perhaps in the area of another local authority. At present, there is no such power, especially when a tenant has come from a different authority. He may have a long record of antisocial behaviour towards his neighbours; he may have, for example, a long record of bad rental payment. However, a different local authority may not take that record into account as the law stands. Surely it would be reasonable for a system of voluntary recording to be undertaken so that a local authority is able to pass on such information to the next local authority. That would be one of the factors that could be taken into account when considering the allocation of housing. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether she agrees with that approach and whether she agrees with amendment No. 7.

Adrian Sanders: I support amendments Nos. 19 and 20, both of which are designed to tackle the same problem and the same deficiency. We all want to do something about neighbours who are disruptive, who cause annoyance, disruption, pain and hurt to others, and the need to do so is recognised in many parts of the Bill, but not in the one that we are discussing. For example, an applicant can go through all the eligibility tests, but when it comes to allocation the priority is lost. Amendment No. 20 is designed to correct the procedure where there is a duty to inform the applicant at all stages about the decisions that have been taken, and in those terms it is similar to amendment No. 19. However, there is no such duty at the allocation stage. It is almost as if there has been an omission at the final stage.
	Amendment No. 1 would ensure that local authorities exercise their discretion in determining the priority that is given to applications for housing in line with the Government's policy intentions. The amendment is designed to promote consistency and to ensure that the Government's policy intentions are met, as set out in the housing Green Paper.
	Much of the debate so far has focused on giving local authorities discretion not to house antisocial tenants. We agree that local authorities should have the discretion to take into account previous violence, antisocial behaviour and other factors that pose a threat to fellow tenants. More broadly, authorities should have discretion to frame their allocation scheme to reflect local circumstances.
	However, proposed new subsection (2A)(b) in clause 15 gives local authorities wide-ranging discretion to take "any behaviour" into consideration when assessing an applicant's priority for accommodation; it does not refer only to antisocial behaviour. Unlike at other stages in the allocation process, no test defines the circumstances in which an authority should apply the provision. That is inconsistent and means that authorities could reduce priority for rent arrears or other reasons. That is common under current arrangements.
	In many parts of the country, the decision to reduce an applicant's priority will mean that he or she will not be housed. That is especially relevant at the moment because local authorities suspend or exclude people for rent arrears that have nothing to do with them but have occurred through, for example, delays in housing benefit administration.
	Amendment No. 20 makes the important point that authorities should provide information when no priority is given to an applicant. A way forward might be to amend the Bill so that it explicitly states that information about the decision and the right of review should be provided. Guidance for local authorities about decisions to reduce priority should also be given.

Glenda Jackson: I should like to speak against the new clause and deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I am worried that he advocates giving the Housing Corporation teeth to deal with housing associations that work with local authorities. In the borough of Camden in my constituency, the local authority and the housing associations work closely together. However, I am sure that he knows that some housing associations deal with specific minority groups—for example, single women. They have expressed anxiety, even at this stage, that the teeth that he advocates for the Housing Corporation could threaten their specific services to groups that remain excluded from local authority priority housing.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the number of repossessions that have taken place. If they are a direct result of the inequities in housing benefit, I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to speak again to our colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions.

Don Foster: I understand the hon. Lady's point about housing associations that have been established to serve the needs of specific groups. The new clause takes that into account and states that the housing association does not need to work with the local authority if that would breach the purposes for which it was set up. She is wrong to say that it is easier for local authorities to work with registered social landlords; the figures show that the situation is getting worse after transfers.

Glenda Jackson: I do not believe that I said that. I spoke of the ease with which Camden, my local authority, works with all the housing associations in the borough. I stress that I read the new clause, and I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, representations have been made to me that suggest that housing associations that attempt to deal with the difficulties of specific minority groups believe—accurately or inaccurately—that any wish to expand their services or engage in development that would mean financial partnership with the Housing Corporation would result in their being put at the bottom of the list.
	I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to speak to our colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions. Although I appreciate that the Government have stated that they do not expect fundamental changes for at least a decade, we cannot wait that long. Far too many people are being punished through no fault of their own, but because of the incompetence of those who provide housing benefit in the area. My borough of Camden has two charter marks for the excellence of its housing benefit service.
	I assume that the amendments that the hon. Member for Bath and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) have tabled deal with bad behaviour. Antisocial behaviour can be enormously destructive, as we all know from experience in our constituencies. However, I was not clear about the point raised by the hon. Member for Bath. Does he believe that the consideration of behaviour should be placed further down a local authority's list of priorities? No one accepts bad behaviour, and I appreciate that local authorities have difficulties in housing families that include one young antisocial member. In such a case, should the whole family be punished?
	I am worried about inappropriate lettings, which have happened in the past and will doubtless occur in future. I want to consider the case of someone whose behaviour is not bad but may be perceived by neighbours as antisocial—for example, if an individual with mental health problems allied to alcohol dependency set fire to their flat. Greater consideration of previous behaviour before the inappropriate placing of the individual could have prevented the incident.
	I do not support the new clause, and I hope that behaviour will be placed at the bottom of the list of criteria. I accept the point about antisocial behaviour, but the purpose of the Bill is to provide for those who are vulnerable.

Sally Keeble: We have had a good debate about amendments that deal with the difficulties of providing a housing service when we have a range of different providers, including housing associations.
	The problems of antisocial behaviour are universally recognised as profound for those who provide or manage housing. Transparency and providing information to people who have applied for housing were also discussed.
	New clause 5 would place a statutory duty on registered social landlords to co-operate with local authorities in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authorities' allocation schemes when that does not unduly prejudice the discharge of their functions. I accept the point about the implications for housing associations that provide special services.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for raising an important issue, which we discussed at length in Committee, where I gave an undertaking to consult with the Housing Corporation about his concerns about the co-operation of registered social landlords and local authorities in tackling housing need. My officials have been working closely with the corporation to ensure that its revised regulatory arrangements can make sure that RSLs co-operate with local authorities.
	I have already met the chair of the Housing Corporation, Baroness Dean, informally to discuss the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I shall meet her again tomorrow to underline the issue's importance and to satisfy myself about the corporation's proposed arrangements. It must take on board the hon. Gentleman's points, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). I undertake to mention the point about the number of lettings and to get information about the percentage that go from the Housing Corporation to homeless families.
	On repossessions, I understand that the article that the hon. Member for Bath mentioned referred to possessions by housing associations and by local authorities. The figures are not simply those for housing associations. The Department has asked for a breakdown of figures so that we can try to ascertain the percentage that is due to rent arrears and that due to antisocial behaviour. I hope that we can thus begin to find a way forward on a difficult problem. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion on the assurance that the issues that he has raised will be tackled.
	Amendments Nos. 11 to 16 would remove the provisions in the Bill which would give local housing authorities the power to decide to treat an applicant as ineligible for an allocation of housing, if satisfied that he was guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant, and which would prevent them from allocating housing to such a tenant.
	Under the current provisions, section 167(1) of the Housing Act 1996 requires that every housing authority must have an allocation scheme which sets out how the authority determines its priorities for making housing allocations. Clause 15 of the Bill would substitute a new section 167(2), which deals with powers and duties concerning how allocation schemes must or may be framed.
	Amendment No. 17 would provide that nothing in new section 167(2) would require an allocation scheme to provide for an allocation to be made to people the authority has decided are guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make them unsuitable to be tenants, and who, in the circumstances at the time their case is considered, deserve not be given any preference for an allocation.
	Amendment No. 18 would reintroduce—in effect, reposition—the provision deleted by amendment No. 14, which specifies the type of behaviour which may be regarded as unacceptable.
	The hon. Members who have tabled this group of amendments may consider that they would simplify the current provisions in the Bill which allow an authority to decide not to allocate to those who would be unsuitable to be a tenant of that authority. However, the provisions as drafted are robust and effective and, crucially, make a clear distinction between the issue of eligibility and the issue of whether any degree of priority for an allocation is deserved under the allocation scheme. This distinction is lost in the amendments. The allocation scheme deals only with the determination of priorities and with procedures to be followed. It does not bear on the question of eligibility for an allocation. If an applicant is ineligible, his allocation will not be considered under the scheme, since the issue of what priority he might deserve will not arise.

Don Foster: I have listened closely to what the Minister has said. Will she explain how, if a person is denied eligibility based on behaviour criteria, there will be any opportunity for the local authority to consider the issue of housing need?

Sally Keeble: The issue of housing need is, of course, the overriding priority. However, I would underline the fact that those whose unacceptable behaviour is serious enough to make them unsuitable to be a local authority tenant cannot behave in that way with impunity. They forfeit the right to be considered for an allocation or to be given any preference for an allocation. It is right that serious antisocial behaviour cannot be tolerated, and local authorities must have the clear power to decide not to allocate to people who have demonstrated—and who continue to demonstrate—that they are unsuitable as tenants.

Don Foster: I fully understand the Minister's argument. I genuinely believe that she is right to say that local authorities must have discretionary powers to exclude people who have serious antisocial behaviour problems. Nevertheless, before we get to the issue of priority, we must address the issue of eligibility. If the Bill is to allow a local authority to deny eligibility to a family on the grounds of behaviour criteria, when is the issue of housing need to be considered in such a case? Surely the answer is that it is not.

Sally Keeble: The problem with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bath is that they conflate the two different issues of eligibility and priority order. It is right that a local authority should be able to make the decision in the first instance, judged by the stricter test of whether a person has forfeited the right, through their behaviour, to be considered eligible for a local authority tenancy.
	Therefore, I do not consider that these amendments would improve the Bill, as they would place provisions which deal with local authority decisions not to make an allocation in the context of the allocation scheme. That seems to me to be the wrong place for them. I believe that the existing structure provides a better way to achieve the desired result, as it would give authorities an unambiguous power to decide not to make an allocation to applicants who had demonstrated that they were unsuitable to be tenants. I urge hon. Members not to press amendments Nos. 11 to 18.
	Amendment No. 19 seeks to ensure that when an applicant's behaviour made that person unsuitable to be a tenant, that would count against him only when his behaviour was deliberate, wilful or negligent. It is certainly important that those who have behaved in an antisocial manner, or in some otherwise unacceptable way, should be given the opportunity to show they have reformed. However, it is also important that local authorities must be able to protect the vast majority of tenants.
	Local authorities must be given the discretion to make balanced judgments on the basis of their knowledge of individual circumstances. Every time the Bill lays down further instructions that local authorities must take into account, we limit their ability to make decisions which, on the basis of their local and particular knowledge, they consider to be in the best interests of the majority of tenants and residents.
	The existing provision already strikes a fair and proper balance between the interests of applicants and those of authorities and existing tenants, with its references to "serious" behaviour and "unsuitability" to be a tenant, and by linking into the grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. These safeguards—already included in the Bill—ensure that to attract "no priority", a person must have been guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant, and which would entitle the authority to a possession order, so that those whose behaviour in the past has fallen short of the best, but is not intolerable, are protected. We have struck a balance which recognises that people can reform, but which also respects the right of the vast majority of tenants and residents to quiet enjoyment of their lives. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the amendment.
	Amendment No. 7 seeks to ensure that a person's previous behaviour, or that of a member of his household, may be taken into account when determining priority for allocation. However, past behaviour may already be taken into account under the terms of the Bill. Clause 15(3), which inserts new section 167(2A)(b) states that
	"any behaviour of a person (or of a member of his household) which affects his suitability to be a tenant"
	may be taken into account. New sections 167(2B) to (2D) also make it clear that past behaviour can be taken into account.
	However, account must be taken of current circumstances as well as an applicant's past behaviour. If there is clear evidence that the applicant has reformed or that the circumstances that led to his or her unacceptable behaviour have changed, the authority must have regard to that evidence. In effect, the authority should assess whether the applicant is likely to behave in an unacceptable manner if allocated housing now. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the amendment.
	The Bill gives housing applicants the right to request information about any decisions which have been taken, or are likely to be taken, about the facts of their case and about any decision that no preference will be given because of unacceptable behaviour. Amendment No. 20 would remove the onus from the individual to request information, and would place an obligation on authorities to inform applicants of any such decisions.
	I am sympathetic to the thinking behind this amendment. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Bath that the application process should be transparent and accessible, and that applicants should be able to obtain the information that they need to get an indication of the degree of priority their application will receive, relative to others. I also understand the importance of priority in terms of people's prospects of being able to obtain accommodation.
	I believe that local authorities should be encouraged to provide as much feedback on individual applications as is practicable, as early as practicable, so that those applying for housing know where they stand and understand their prospects, be they good or bad, and can make plans accordingly. That is particularly important in respect of those households that are being accommodated temporarily under the homelessness legislation while awaiting the opportunity of an allocation to provide them with a more settled home. I can assure the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), as I have said to the hon. Member for Bath, that that will be reflected in statutory guidance as strongly as possible. It will also be done in consultation with housing authorities.
	I recognise also that the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government support the proposal. However, I remain concerned that we do not inadvertently place local authorities in a difficult position by including statutory duties that may not be practical. The provisions have been carefully and thoughtfully drafted. They recognise that, although some authorities may decide to continue to operate what might be characterised as points-based allocation schemes, others are moving to choice-based schemes, which allow applicants more opportunity to exercise their preference for particular properties. The statutory provisions therefore need to be appropriate to both types of scheme as well as any others that local authorities may devise.
	The provisions on applicants' right to information about their applications, which amendment No. 20 would modify, are a case in point. Under choice-based schemes, active consideration of the facts of an applicant's case may not occur until he or she makes a specific application for a particular property. Under the provisions as drafted, an applicant has a right to ask about decisions likely to be taken on his application. That right applies at any stage of the process, including from the outset.
	If no decisions have been taken by the authority at the point at which an applicant makes a request, the authority must nevertheless consider his application and inform him what the decisions are likely to be. I remain concerned that it would be impractical and onerous for authorities operating a choice-based allocation scheme to have to provide that information as a matter of course for all applicants, whether they require it or not.
	I am also concerned about whether, under a choice-based scheme, an application would be considered in such detail. However, I am ready to give the matter further consideration. I shall ask my officials to consult the local government associations so that we can be absolutely sure of the implications involved and sure that we have a sound and practical provision. On that undertaking, I ask hon. Members to withdraw the new clause.

Don Foster: I thank the Minister for her responses to the separate issues that have been raised and I am delighted that she has already had informal meetings with the Housing Corporation. I understand that tomorrow's meeting will be formal and I hope that minutes will be available in due course. She goes with the clear wish of Members on both sides of the House that she fight hard to ensure that the commitments that she has made tonight are honoured by the Housing Corporation. We wish her well in those meetings.
	I confess to being disappointed with the Minister's response in respect of whether it is appropriate to omit at the eligibility stage of determining what support to give a homeless applicant the issue of possible rejection on the ground of previous behaviour. She accused me of conflating the stages of eligibility and priority, but if there is confusion about that it is hers, not mine.
	The issue is simple. I genuinely believe that the Government intend that a high priority be given to housing need in allocations policy. Indeed, I believe that because it is what they keep telling us in every single one of their housing documents. For example, in paragraphs 9.15 and 9.16 of the housing Green Paper, they state:
	"Any decisions to suspend applications would need to take account of the circumstances of the household in order to safeguard vulnerable groups such as those with mental or behavioural problems, or the children of the families concerned. We would expect suspensions to be exceptional and that other ways of managing problems or risk may be more appropriate in many cases".
	They continue:
	"Meeting housing need remains the priority for lettings and transfer policies".
	That picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). Is it the key issue, and does it remain the Government's priority? I suggest that, by allowing local authorities to ignore housing need when eligibility is determined by simply addressing the issue of behaviour, they are going totally against what they suggest throughout their policy document. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that issue.
	On the behavioural hurdles that should be set at the various stages, I genuinely believe that there is confusion in the Government's mind. They have rightly said that we should not allow any old behaviour criteria to be adopted. There are already significant problems with rent arrears and hon. Members are well aware that 89 per cent. of housing authorities use it as a reason for not allowing a transfer to take place. Of those, two thirds have no specific detail about what level that rent arrears should be.
	There is genuine concern about the issue, so it seems odd to say the least that the Government propose a series of high hurdles early in the process. For whatever reason, a local authority might not want to house a certain person, but even if he does not cross those high hurdles he is allowed to move on to the next stage, and rightly so. Yet the Government say that, at that next stage, the local authority can take any behaviour into consideration.
	That person can get through the first stage against agreed criteria, but at the next stage of priority the local authority can say, "We don't like you. Any behaviour will do, so you are not going to get high priority and you won't get housing." I suggest to the Minister that there is an inconsistency in the procedure. Again, I hope that she will reflect on it.
	I am grateful for the Minister's response in respect of giving applicants information on the priority allocated to them, and I accept entirely that a complication is brought into play by the move to choice-based lettings schemes. I welcome the fact that more local authorities, including mine, are considering how to move to such a scheme. That change will alter the nature of the information and the way in which it should be provided. I am delighted that she has agreed to reflect on that. She has my assurance that I too will reflect on it in consultation with my colleagues in the other place, where the matter may be raised again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Duty of local housing authority to formulate a housing strategy

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 3, after "authority")", insert—
	'and its strategic partners, to include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, and voluntary organisations and other relevant bodies ("strategic partners")'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
	'(4A) The authority shall maintain a list of those organisations which are its strategic partners, which it may modify from time to time.'.
	No. 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
	'; and
	(d) the availability of housing advice within the district.'.
	No. 4, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
	'(d) providing for the welfare of animals under the control of homeless persons.'.
	No. 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after "authority", insert "and its strategic partners".
	No. 8, in page 3, line 12, at end insert—
	'(5A) In formulating a homelessness strategy the authority shall have regard to—
	(a) the total and types of empty housing and vacant property within their district which should be based on regular audits of such property;
	(b) targets for the re-use of such properties for residential purposes;
	(c) "turn-around" times for the re-letting of empty property; and
	(d) its own action plan to achieve the targets set out in paragraph (b) above, including action by any public authority, voluntary organisation or other body or person whose activities are capable of contributing to the achieving of these objectives.'.
	No. 9, in page 3, line 12, at end insert—
	'(5A) In formulating a homelessness strategy the authority shall make specific reference to—
	(a) the extent and nature of empty housing and vacant property within their district across all sectors and tenures;
	(b) targets for the re–use of such properties for residential purposes; and
	(c) a strategy for action to achieve the targets set out in (b) above, including action by any public authority, voluntary organisation or other body or person whose activities are capable of contributing to the achieving of these objectives.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The amendment deals with the duty of the local authority to formulate a homelessness strategy, which is outlined in clauses 1 to 3. We consider it against a background of the number of priority homeless rising from 102,650 in 1997–98 to 114,350 in 2000–01—a 12,000 increase in the past four years. The figures come from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions press release entitled "Statutory Homeless England, Second Quarter 2001". The number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has soared by a staggering 152 per cent. from 4,500 in quarter 2 1997 to 11,314 in quarter 2 2001.
	The duty on a local authority to formulate a homelessness strategy is extremely welcome, but we must get it right. Our amendment No. 1, which incorporates a number of other strategic partners, must be the right way forward. It should be the duty of a local authority to involve registered social landlords and other strategic partners—for example, representatives from the private rented sector and from non-governmental organisations, such as Shelter, Crisis or the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which have a particular role in a particular area. Given that background, it is important that we seriously consider this proposal.
	Large-scale voluntary transfers have proceeded at a pace. The Minister announced that 27 local authorities will be able to proceed with
	"32 transfers of all or part of their housing stock to registered social landlords."—[Official Report, 22 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 10W.]
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) told us that by 2004 the majority of all council housing will be run by registered social landlords. We would not expect such a huge change under a Labour Government. The Conservative party welcomes that change, provided that it is accompanied by tenant choice. Careful safeguards should be in place so that tenants can be properly consulted about changes before they take place.
	Registered social landlords have far greater flexibility to borrow money from the private sector. The Government are a little chary of that, and perhaps could improve the situation. By levying more money from the private sector, they would have more money to build more social housing units and thereby reduce the homeless figures that I have just given.
	Some of those large-scale voluntary transfers are from large authorities, such as Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow. It is not just the smaller authorities, such as my own, that have carried out large-scale voluntary transfers: large numbers of houses are being transferred from local authorities to registered social landlords. Under those circumstances, it would be illogical, if not bizarre and perverse, not to put a statutory duty in the Bill that those bodies should be consulted by local authorities when drawing up their homelessness strategy. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that.
	There is a second argument in this saga. Housing associations are, by and large, run by volunteers. It would be odd if they were not consulted under the homelessness strategy. I can see no good argument why people who are giving such good service—I emphasise that—in the registered social housing sector should be excluded from the strategy. In my constituency, the Fossway housing authority does an extremely good job. I shall not go so far as to say that it does a better job than the local authority, but it does an extremely good job. It does much voluntary work. The Cirencester young persons housing association also does a lot of good work and is staffed by young people who put much energy into trying to solve the problems of young homelessness in the Cirencester area. To exclude such people from this homelessness strategy would be totally bizarre.
	I do not believe that the fact that such bodies are voluntary should make any difference. They work with these difficult problems day in and day out. That proves that they are serious organisations. The argument may be put that they are too small to have any real input into the debate. I do not think that size makes any difference: if registered social landlords are small or large, if they represent a few or many private landowners or if they are deemed to have a realistic contribution to make to the debate, they should be included in statute.
	We have been round this course twice before, so I know that the Government may try to resist our amendments. If they are not prepared to incorporate such bodies in the statute, as we think they should be, please may we have some pretty strong regulations that make it perfectly clear that local authorities would be expected to include them.
	The third argument for including such organisations relates to the contention that they would undermine the strategic responsibilities of local authorities. As I have shown, within a few years the majority of the public sector housing stock will be run by registered social landlords. Admittedly, local authorities will still be involved and will have a vital role in determining public housing strategy, but it would be bizarre if these organisations were not included in the homelessness review.
	There is a strong case for including those bodies. Amendment No. 5 is consequential on amendment No. 2, and on the organisations being included in the statute.
	Amendment No. 8 sets out four considerations to which authorities should have regard in formulating a homelessness strategy. I think that the Government would have difficulty arguing that these matters are not important enough to be taken into account. The first is that the total and types of empty housing and vacant property within an authority's district should be based on regular audits of such property. Unless authorities are carrying out audits of how effective they are at turning property around, they are not doing their job well. Surely the Government's best value initiative will demand that audits are conducted. If the best value initiative demands that an audit should take place, why not put that in the Bill?
	I can illustrate graphically the difference in efficiency between local authorities—the average turn-around of empty housing in the Isle of Wight is two days, whereas the three worst local authorities, which as one would expect are Labour controlled, including that of the Deputy Prime Minister, Kingston upon Hull—take many months to turn around their empty properties. I am sure that the Minister will argue that those Labour authorities have a much more difficult housing problem because they are inner-city authorities. That may be so, but that does not explain the huge difference between the Isle of Wight and the three worst Labour authorities—many other authorities are not far behind them in inefficiency.
	We need to examine this problem carefully. If local authorities could bring up the average turn-around of empty properties and make it a little quicker, that would have a huge impact on the homelessness problem.

David Kidney: Is the whole amendment directed just at empty council housing?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Indeed it is not. The hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to add that we need to do something about the huge amount of vacant property in the private sector. The same applies: I think we should give all possible encouragement to private landlords to let their empty properties. We have had many debates about, for example, the letting of flats over shops—an asset that the country is not using enough. We could better use it in various ways, certainly through the use of tax incentives to encourage the letting of flats over shops by those who currently find that uneconomic because they are compromising commercial leases. There must be ways around that.
	It follows that, where there is a dichotomy between the best and the worst authorities in terms of how quickly they can turn around their empty properties, targets should be set. That is the object of paragraph (b) of amendment No.8.

Adrian Sanders: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that this has very little to do with political control? It has much more to do with the action of housing markets in the areas involved. Where there is surplus stock along with a very short waiting list, there is no need to turn around empty houses, whereas in areas with high demand and long waiting lists there is such a need.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I agree with half of that. There is always a need to be ever more efficient when dealing with public property and public money, especially when people are waiting for housing in, sometimes, very distressed circumstances. We should never be complacent about the need to turn around housing. Indeed, if a local authority is particularly efficient—undoubtedly, it does happen—it will be able to accept more transfers from other areas. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman in that regard, but I agree with the other part of what he said.
	I cited the three worst authorities in this respect, and pointed out that they were Labour authorities. They have bigger problems than others—they are inner-city authorities with run-down housing stock and various other disadvantages—but that is not to say that we, as a Government and a country, should not demand that they improve their efficiency. I register an interest as a chartered surveyor: I speak with a little professional knowledge. I think it possible for every local authority to improve its efficiency, which is why we want to set
	"targets for the re-use of such properties for residential purposes".

David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in many circumstances, it is the amount of time taken to repair a property that is critical? The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) mentioned the importance of considering different housing markets in relation to individual local authorities. I think that what is critical is the time taken by a local authority to take a void property and return it to use, not the time during which the property is sitting on its books while multiple offers are being made.
	I have worked for a housing authority, and I know that properties can be offered eight or nine times. Authorities such as that—and it was a Labour authority—work very hard to ensure that properties are let as efficiently as possible. The hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I accept that many people in local authorities throughout the country work hard to re-let their properties efficiently, and I accept that a change of tenant often provides a time during which a property can be refurbished. It is much easier to refurbish an empty property than it is to refurbish one in which someone is living. I suspect, however, that if some authorities maintained their housing stock a little better, they would not need to do so much refurbishment. I have seen some pretty innovative refurbishment of housing, and housing association schemes, in my authority—and, indeed, throughout the country, when I was a member of the Environment Select Committee.
	If refurbishment schemes are conducted properly they should have a useful life of many decades, and there should be no need for major refurbishment. That is why I applaud a move to large-scale voluntary transfer to lever more money into the private sector, so that we can have more high-quality refurbishment. That is how we should be tackling some of our homelessness problems.
	I find it hard to believe that any Member would rail against the idea that local authorities should be more efficient in re-letting their properties. I accept that some have more problems than others, but I do not accept that we should not make greater efforts. Paragraph (a) of amendment No. 8 is intended to reduce the time involved, paragraph (b) sets targets, paragraph (c) asks for an improvement in turn-around times for the re-letting of empty property, and paragraph (d) suggests that each authority should have an action plan for the meeting of targets. That would form part of the homelessness strategy.
	Amendment No. 6 deals with the amount of time for which an offer shall remain open for acceptance. Let me, if I may, quote—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As amendment No. 6 has not been selected, I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to speak to it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Amendment No. 3 deals with the advice that local authorities must give in their homelessness strategies. This is an important matter, and we covered it in some detail in Committee, so I do not propose to do so again now. Suffice it to say that the regulatory code for the Housing Corporation and its registered social landlords may need to be examined. There are good and bad registered social landlords, and we must root out the bad ones and make sure that all landlords give proper advice to those registering as homeless. In particular, we need to make sure that proper registers of telephone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are kept. The Minister says that such registers do not exist, but I have seen them.
	The Opposition are not the only ones saying that there is a variation in the quality of advice throughout the country. Shelter, an organisation that should know what it is talking about, conducted research, whereby people told different housing departments that they were single mothers, children or whatever in an attempt to get advice. In one case, a single mother received dreadful advice that was of no help at all.
	When we were debating the Homes Bill in Committee, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), said:
	"The availability of housing advice, its quality and extent, should and will have to be considered as part of homelessness reviews."
	In response to the hon. Member for Bath, he asked:
	"Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the notes will be incorporated within the existing code?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 315-16.]
	If those notes are to incorporated in the code, there is no reason why they should not be incorporated in the Bill. Surely housing advice to homeless people, and the quality of that advice, should be a major part of any local authority's homelessness strategy.
	We touched on amendment No. 4 in our discussion on the rough sleepers unit. It covers housing provision for homeless people with pets. I accept that this is a sensitive issue, and I am sure that the whole House wants to treat it as such. There are some homeless people whose quality of life is hugely improved by the ownership of a pet, often a dog or a cat. Local authorities are not always as sympathetic as they might be to the need to provide housing that can accommodate pets.
	I accept that much housing is high-rise and therefore unsuitable for pets, but pet ownership should be one of the factors considered when determining the suitability of housing for homeless people, and that should be stated in the Bill. Some might say that we should regard the homeless themselves as the priority, not their pets, but there are heart-rending cases of people being put into unsuitable housing and having to get rid of a much-loved pet. We need to think carefully before we deprive people who are already in difficult circumstances of their pets.

David Lepper: Has the hon. Gentleman consulted the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or other animal welfare organisations in formulating amendment No. 4?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The RSPCA has commented previously on the matter, and I think that it is self-evident that that organisation exists to ensure that all pets in the United Kingdom are treated humanely. The RSPCA would certainly not condone someone with a pet being given housing that was unsuitable for keeping the pet in proper conditions.
	There is quite a lot of meat to our four amendments in this group. We have already been round the course of annunciating the voluntary partners that should be incorporated in the homelessness strategy, but I believe that the Government should seriously consider specifying such matters in the Bill. If they will not include such provision, please may we have some forceful directives that make local authorities consider all those bodies?

David Kidney: As my amendment No. 9, on empty homes, is linked to amendment No. 1, I should like to take this opportunity to seek two specific reassurances from the Minister, the first of which is on the guidance on empty homes that Ministers will, according to the Bill, give to local authorities. The second reassurance concerns local authorities' powers of compulsory purchase.
	The Bill requires all local authorities to formulate strategies, and then to perform their duties and exercise their powers in accordance with those strategies to reduce homelessness. Amendment No. 9 states that the Bill should require local authorities to refer in their strategies specifically to tackling the problem of empty homes.
	The Minister and I do not differ in recognising the importance across the country of the problem of homes that are standing empty. I suspect that we agree also that too many properties are standing empty needlessly. In England, at any one time, about 750,000 properties are standing empty, the vast majority of which are in private ownership. I think that she and I agree also that too little has been done to reduce the number of empty properties. The Empty Homes Agency, however, estimates that only about half of local authorities have a formal strategy to tackle the problem of empty homes.
	I hope that the Minister agrees that public opinion supports tough action to fill empty homes, and that people feel very strongly about the issue, and not only when there is a campaign against a proposal to build a housing estate on a nearby greenfield site. I should think that all hon. Members in the Chamber share my experience of many constituents complaining about the waste of good-quality homes that are standing empty.
	At one point in Committee, I felt that the Minister was perhaps suggesting that the empty homes problem is not shared uniformly across the country but affects only parts of the country. Subsequently, therefore, I tabled a written parliamentary question to ask whether she could provide the statistics for the number of empty homes by region. I hope that she will agree that the figures for 2000, which she provided in her answer to me of 18 July, show that the total number of vacant dwellings in every region of England, at least, is simply too high.
	I accept that the statistics showing the number of properties standing empty are only a snapshot of the situation at any one time and that the number of empty properties varies over time, as empty properties are occupied and occupied properties vacated. Nevertheless, the total number of empty properties is simply too high in every region of England.
	The Empty Homes Agency does a great job in the work that it does. It highlights scandalous cases of empty properties, collects and disseminates examples of best practice and gives advice to local authorities and others. The Empty Homes Agency is the strongest proponent of taking action along the lines proposed in amendment No. 9, requiring local authorities to identify the scale of the problem in their area, to adopt targets to reduce the number of empty homes and to work with partners to fill empty homes.
	During Committee stage, I corresponded with the Local Government Association about the amendment. However, it was not possible to get a considered response from the LGA until after the conclusion of the Committee. It is fair to point out today that the LGA's considered view is to ask me to accept that the amendment is unworkable and that this is a problem best dealt with by ministerial guidance.
	Hon. Members may have received a briefing from the LGA for today's proceedings. The briefing summarises the objections set out in the correspondence with me. First, the LGA says that local authorities do not have full control of all the properties that are empty, and so it would be unfair to impose targets on them. Secondly, local authorities work in partnership with others and cannot impose their views on their partners. Thirdly, the amendment is described as unworkable.
	I am not convinced that some redrafting of the wording could not satisfy the objections, but the thrust of the LGA's objections is that it is pleading for the flexibility that guidance gives. There are times when we should not agree to give Governments of any political hue flexibility, but when those who are to be on the receiving end of the guidance feel that that flexibility would be helpful, it is reasonable to listen. My amendment does not need be pressed to a vote as a result of the LGA's view.
	The first point on which I seek reassurance is on the question of guidance. All local authorities are under a duty to formulate homelessness strategies. Will the Minister confirm that the guidance will say that tackling the question of empty properties is an important part of such a strategy? In this way, all local authorities will be required to have a strategy to tackle empty homes. This will plug the main gap that the Empty Homes Agency feels exists at present.
	Will the Minister say something about the allocation of resources to local authorities? Can she confirm that when the Government allocate funding, the performance of local authorities in giving effect to the guidance will be taken into account? That would be a powerful message to local authorities to carry out what the Government say.
	The second issue is compulsory purchase. I mentioned earlier that hon. Members will have received complaints from constituents about properties standing empty. I would like to illustrate that from my casework, with two spectacular examples of empty properties. For the first, I refer to my local newspaper of record, the Staffordshire Newsletter, and the on-going saga of a semi-detached property in a good residential area of Stafford town that, apparently, has stood empty for 30 years. In the report, a resident of the street is quoted as saying, rather mournfully:
	"One day it may be resolved but goodness knows when. It goes on and on."
	The second example concerns correspondence that I have had with a number of people, including the local authority, about a sturdy, characterful property on the edge of a conservation area that was once rented out by its private owner but has been kept empty since 1982. Owners in both cases have done just enough to avert the local authorities stepping in and exercising powers to require renovation, demolition or closure, but the properties stand empty.
	My Empty Homes Bill in the last Parliament proposed that the power of local authorities for compulsory purchase should be tweaked. Local authorities should have the power in the pursuance of a strategy to exercise compulsory purchase to bring back into use empty homes. Surely owners should not have an open-ended right to keep good quality residential properties empty for long periods. Local authorities should be able to acquire them at a fair price and ensure that they are occupied by local authority tenants, by a registered social landlord taking over the ownership and renting it out, or by an owner-occupier. Will the Minister say something about powers of compulsory purchase? I know that in the last Parliament there was an exhaustive—officials might say exhausting—review of compulsory purchase powers, but I hope that some action will now result.
	I share the Minister's intention of reducing homelessness. I believe that tackling empty homes is an important step among the several measures that will be effective in achieving that.

Hywel Williams: We in Plaid Cymru welcome the Bill and its emphasis on a strategic approach to homelessness and on strengthening the position of homeless people.
	I support amendment No. 9 rather than amendment No. 8. It takes a complete approach to the entire housing stock
	"across all sectors and tenures".
	Much of rural Wales—and rural England, for that matter—has sufficient housing stock, with more than enough houses of the proper quality and in the right locations to meet community needs, yet those houses stand empty, out of the reach of local people because of the high price or the high rent. Many also stand empty for long periods because they are second homes.
	Those houses are a fundamental part of the housing stock—perhaps 20 or 30 per cent., and more in some areas. In case anyone is taking comfort in the idea that they are in remote locations, it should be understood that many of them are in the centres of villages. They influence the entire provision, taking large parts of the stock out of the equation and causing housing need.
	We also have substandard housing in rural areas, as was clearly shown recently by the National Assembly for Wales's new index of deprivation. Such substandard housing, which is now recognised whereas it was previously disregarded, again causes housing need.
	In Wales, as elsewhere, we have homelessness. In my constituency, much of the recognised homelessness involves young people who live with their parents or parents-in-law or with friends in overcrowded and unsuitable bad housing. They are unable to rent because of high rents and the lack of suitable property, and unable to buy because they are on low wages, perhaps in seasonal employment, and are pushed out of the market by high prices. They are the victims of structural homelessness. It is no fault of their own.
	As well as recognised homelessness, we have masked homelessness in rural Wales. It is masked by out-migration, not through choice but because of poverty and the lack of decent housing. We also have rough sleepers—yes, in rural areas, as was shown some time ago in my constituency by research carried out by a local group, Cywaith Joseph, which found people sleeping rough in the smallest of villages.
	There are consequences for the viability and vitality of local communities, and there are particular pressures on communities in which the Welsh language is the everyday medium of community life. That was shown by research carried out by my constituency predecessor, Dafydd Wigley, this summer. There are many such communities in my constituency, and they are on the brink of losing the fight for survival.
	Clause 3 is aimed at preventing homelessness and ensuring that sufficient accommodation is available for those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. In the category of people at risk are those who have had to migrate out of their area. The clause is also aimed at providing services for such people. To accept amendment No. 9 would contribute considerably towards the achievement of those aims, especially in the circumstances of structural homelessness that I have outlined.
	Amendment No. 9 refers to
	"vacant property . . . across all sectors and tenures"
	and calls for targets for reuse. That would encourage the planning of use across the whole of the housing stock, which, I submit, should include the purchase of existing stock by social landlords, rather than new build, which has been the pattern in much of Wales over the past few years. The amendment calls for a strategy for action—action that is sorely needed. I will draw it to the attention of my colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales ahead of their consideration of these matters, and for now I give it my wholehearted support.

Sally Keeble: The principal aims of the Bill are to set a coherent framework for local authorities to adopt in tackling homelessness, to strengthen the homelessness safety net and to extend choice. Those aims have generally been widely and warmly welcomed.
	The Government may set the framework for tackling homelessness, but local authorities are best placed to co-ordinate strategies locally and to initiate preventive measures in their local areas. The Bill requires local authorities to take a more strategic approach to tackling and preventing homelessness.
	A partnership approach is central to our proposals. We require local authorities to take a multi-agency strategic approach to preventing and responding to homelessness. Many agencies are involved with people who are homeless or at risk of becoming so, and it is important that those agencies work together to avoid duplication and gaps in the provision. A wide range of bodies should be engaged in reviews and strategies, and in the prevention and management of homelessness: probation services, voluntary organisations, housing associations, and organisations working with young people and those suffering from mental health problems. Organisations that deal with rough sleepers, too, have a vital role to play.
	Amendment No. 1 would specify the bodies that should co-operate with local authorities. One, presumably unintended, effect of the amendment would be that many very small landlords and small organisations would be caught up in the obligation to participate in homelessness reviews and strategies. Co-ops and landlords of houses in multiple occupation are indeed important housing providers, and some will want to engage with the authorities. Where there is a willingness to co-operate, I would expect local housing authorities to welcome that, and to build real partnerships—but such arrangements cannot be forced, and I believe that they would be undermined by a statutory obligation.
	My main objection to the amendment is that it would undermine the strategic responsibility that we are placing on local housing authorities. It is for them to undertake homelessness reviews—in partnership, and as part of their wider housing and community responsibilities. It is important that authorities accept that, and are clear that the responsibility rests with them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I anticipated earlier that one of the Minister's arguments would be that local authorities would lose their strategic role in producing homelessness strategies if it was incorporated in statute that other agencies were to be included. However, as I said then, if by 2004 more than half of all public housing is run by registered social landlords, surely it is correct that they should be incorporated in statute as one of the consultees in the homelessness strategy policy.

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman might think about the difference between the strategic purchaser function and the provider function. In this instance it is important that the local authority have a clear strategic role in identifying the views of the community and ensuring that provision is in place. Of course authorities will need, and want, to do that in partnership with local agencies and everyone involved in the community, but I would argue the reverse of what the hon. Gentleman says. As the provider role is dispersed more widely, it is even more important for the local authority to be absolutely clear about its strategic function of dealing with housing issues and ensuring that proper provision for homeless people is in place.
	Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 are consequent on amendment No. 1. We must take a sensible and strategic view of what is necessary to establish a robust and coherent framework for undertaking reviews and delivering strategies—a framework that allows offices to run their affairs competently. That means taking a sensible view of the level of detail required on the face of the Bill.
	Last week I made copies of a draft chapter of the code of guidance and draft good practice guidance covering homelessness reviews and strategies. It is available for Members in the Library. Hon. Members will see that the need for close co-operation and ways of achieving effective partnership working are thoroughly explored in those documents.
	Amendment No. 3 would require local authorities to review the availability of housing advice in their district as part of their homelessness review. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising that important issue. It is certainly our underlying intention that these provisions should do more than address the consequences of homelessness: they should help to avert it. Prevention, through advice, assistance and multi-agency working, will be an important aspect of all homelessness strategies and reviews. The availability of housing advice, and its quality and extent, should most certainly be considered as part of a homelessness review. I hope that that will give the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) the assurance that he seeks.
	Not every issue that should be addressed in a review needs to be listed on the face of the Bill. Indeed, I take the view that housing advice falls clearly under 2(1)(b), read with clause 2(2)(c), which is the requirement that reviews look at the activities carried out for purposes of providing support for people in the district who are or may become homeless. Moreover, in the draft chapter to the code of guidance that I have made available in the Library, hon. Members will see that the provision of advice services is clearly included under the list of activities that contribute to the prevention of homelessness and that one would expect to be considered as part of a homelessness review.
	Amendment No. 4 would place on local authorities, as part of their statutory duties to undertake homelessness reviews, a requirement to review provision for the welfare of animals under the control of homeless persons. I agree with Opposition Members that authorities should try to ensure that those placed in temporary accommodation are able to keep their pets, as far as it is possible and reasonable to do so. The issue is of particular concern to two groups. One is elderly people; it is important that local authorities make proper provision and treat the issue with great sensitivity. The second is homeless people; attachment to pets is often a substantial barrier to helping people get off the streets. A number of local authorities have made specific provision to deal with that problem—for example, providing kennels in night shelters, or removing the "no animals" clause from housing association tenancy agreements.
	However, it is not appropriate to place such a requirement in primary legislation or to give it more prominence than many other important matters that local authorities will have to address in drawing up their homelessness reviews. The draft 1999 code of guidance for local authorities on the allocation of accommodation and homelessness already makes specific mention of an authority's need to be sensitive to the special needs of applicants, especially elderly applicants, with regard to the companionship they may get from their pets, when allocating accommodation. We will also ensure that the issue is covered in guidance in relation to homelessness. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising this issue and I fully recognise the concerns expressed, but the matter can and should be addressed through guidance, not through the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 would require local authorities to include an empty homes strategy in their homelessness strategy and are specific about the steps that they would have to take to devise such a strategy. Local authorities that are committed to effective action on empty properties will normally choose to set out their plans in the form of a clear strategy that matches resources to the scale of the problem in their district. Indeed, the housing investment programme encourages authorities to do so and we require them to report their performance through the best value in housing programme. That does not mean, however, that we should impose a statutory requirement on authorities to produce such a strategy or to set out prescriptively the procedures that they should follow in drawing it up. I am not convinced that that would in itself result in any greater commitment, or level of useful activity, on the part of some authorities. I am even less convinced that the Bill is the right vehicle for proposing such a duty on local authorities.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for the points that he raised and I pay tribute to the work that he has done to highlight the issue and the work of the Empty Homes Agency. We are looking again at compulsory purchase. I hope that my assurances on guidance will satisfy my hon. Friend that the Government are taking bringing empty properties back into use seriously. We will be ensuring that the revised code of guidance on homelessness takes full account of best practice in reducing the number of empty homes and converting redundant commercial property to housing use. However, if right hon. and hon. Members have any illusions about the complexity of the issues surrounding empty properties, particularly in the north of England, they should read the excellent report produced by the centre for urban and regional studies at Birmingham university on the problems of low demand in the M62 corridor. The report deals with the serious implications for housing strategies in areas where demand has collapsed. In both the public and private sectors there are real difficulties to do with bringing back empty properties into use that go far beyond issues of housing efficiency.
	On the basis of the assurances that have been given, I would ask the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for her very full reply. I would have more sympathy with her rejection of all our amendments if it were made in a different climate. Against the background of a rising number of priority homeless people and those housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, I am a little sceptical about all these matters being put into the guidance and about whether they will affect the situation. However, we shall have to wait and see. The time is getting late and we want to allow enough time for Third Reading. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 8
	 — 
	Review of decisions as to suitability of accommodation

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 5, line 43, leave out ", after subsection (1)" and insert "—
	(a) in paragraph (f) of subsection (1), at the end there is inserted "or as to the suitability of accommodation offered to him as mentioned in section 193(7)"; and
	(b) after that subsection'.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Clause 19
	 — 
	Commencement, transitional provisional and general saving

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 12, line 15, at end insert—
	'and paragraphs 3 and 7 of Schedule 1'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 24 and 25.

Alan Whitehead: I trust that these amendments will be agreed by the House with acclaim. They all deal with one minor issue in providing that paragraphs 3 and 7 of schedule 1 will come into force on Royal Assent. Paragraphs 3 and 7 of schedule 1 amend existing sections 161(2A) and 185(2A) which were inserted in the Housing Act 1996 by section 117 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
	Section 161(2A) of the 1996 Act currently provides that the Secretary of State cannot prescribe in regulations that a class of person is qualified for the allocation of local authority housing under part VI of the 1996 Act if that class of person is excluded from entitlement to certain state benefits, including housing benefit, pursuant to section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Groups excluded by section 115 include persons subject to immigration control who have been given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom on condition that they do not have recourse to public funds. Section 185(2A) makes similar provision in respect of eligibility for homelessness assistance under part VII of the 1996 Act.
	The policy intention behind the 1996 Act provisions is to ensure that those not entitled to housing benefit cannot be prescribed as qualifying persons. We are not concerned with entitlement to the other benefits. Arguments put forward in recent judicial proceedings cast doubt on whether these provisions achieve the policy intention, and paragraphs 3 and 7 seek to make the position clear. However, they need to come into force as quickly as possible to avoid any further possibility of doubt. That is especially necessary if paragraph 3 is to have any usefulness as other provisions, namely clause 13, would repeal section 161 of the 1996 Act when commenced.
	I commend the amendment to the House.
	Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 13, line 15, at end insert—
	'(2) This paragraph comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.'.
	No. 25, in page 13, line 33, at end insert—
	'(2) This paragraph comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.'.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Sally Keeble: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Homelessness Bill is a vital strand of the Government's wider housing strategy to ensure that everybody has the opportunity and choice of a decent home. It will empower local housing authorities to provide greater protection to vulnerable families and to individuals who find themselves homeless. It will provide for more effective strategies and services both to tackle cases of homelessness and to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. Most important, however, it will give homeless people more rights and, through regulation on which we are currently holding consultations, it will extend those rights to more vulnerable people.
	The Bill has struck a chord with Members on both sides of the House. Whatever our disagreements on some of the detail, it is clear from the speeches made on both sides of the House that there is real concern about the homeless and real support for these proposals, which will really transform the life chances for many of the most vulnerable people in our society.
	Our proposals will strengthen the homelessness safety net. They will promote a more strategic approach by housing authorities so that they can manage homelessness more effectively and prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. The Bill will encourage housing authorities to offer more choice to all people applying for social housing. Our proposals are designed to protect the most vulnerable people in our society, to promote housing choice, to help create sustainable communities and to confront some of the problems of social exclusion.
	One of the most important changes that we want to bring about through the Homelessness Bill is to channel much greater effort into the prevention of homelessness. As I said earlier, our proposals will require housing authorities to adopt a more strategic approach to tackling the causes of all forms of homelessness and preventing its recurrence.
	The Bill also strengthens the existing homelessness safety net by making several amendments and repeals to provisions in the Housing Act 1996. In doing so, it will remove some of the restrictions that have damaged the cause of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The Bill will ensure that all applicants who are unintentionally homeless and have a priority need must be secured suitable accommodation for as long as necessary, until a settled home becomes available. The current two-year limit on the main homelessness duty to secure suitable accommodation will be removed.
	The Bill will make several important changes to current legislation to strengthen the protection available to homeless people. One of the most important of such groups includes people who are homeless due to violence, especially domestic violence. The measure makes it clear that applicants who would be at risk of any form of violence if they remained in their current home must be treated as homeless. It will prevent authorities from referring such people back to an area where there would be a risk of further violence.
	In Standing Committee, I undertook to consider with my colleagues at the Department of Health and report to hon. Members on issues arising from the operation of the Children Act 1989 in relation to homeless families. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) for drawing that important matter to my attention. I share her concerns that social legislation should provide the vital safety net that it is intended to give.
	The issue relates to the workings of the Children Act 1989 and was prompted by concern about two recent court cases. In both cases, the courts considered the nature of the obligation of a social services authority under the Children Act 1989 to provide accommodation and financial support for children in need, particularly when parents are unable to secure accommodation and a local housing authority is not obliged to help under the Housing Act 1996. I have discussed the issue with colleagues at the Department of Health; it is a complicated matter and we are giving it serious consideration, especially in the light of further information that has recently been received from Shelter. We shall therefore need to return to it once the Bill has been considered in another place.

Don Foster: May I press the Minister on that point? Can she give the House an assurance on the case of a homeless family seeking support from a local authority which, because of the behaviour of one family member, decides that the whole family is ineligible? Will the work that she will do with her colleagues to review the Children Act lead to support being provided under that Act, as it will not be provided under homelessness legislation?

Sally Keeble: The exact interrelationship between homelessness legislation and the Children Act is under dispute. Assurances have been given that the recent court cases do not change the obligation. However, we want to look more closely at cases that have arisen and we shall return with detailed advice which, I hope, will cover the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
	In addition to dealing with immediate problems of homelessness, the Bill deals with wider issues in social housing. It includes measures to give improved rights to new applicants for local authority housing by setting standards for consistency both in the treatment of their applications and information. It also provides for more choice for new and existing tenants in the social housing sector who are seeking a transfer, which is an important, but often overlooked, aspect of the Bill. It opens the way for choice-based lettings schemes, which give new applicants and existing tenants who wish to transfer to another property more say in choosing where they live from the properties available to let that are appropriate to their needs. That is the best means of meeting the long-term housing requirements of those who need social housing in a way that is sustainable both for individuals and the community; it will create more solid and lasting communities. The Government's vision for the future of social housing is to increase choice and customer-centred approaches while continuing to meet housing need. The challenge for pilot schemes in choice-based letting is to examine how choice and need can be better integrated.
	Our proposals for strengthening the protection available to homeless people go beyond the measures in the Bill. We have recently consulted on a priority needs order under the 1996 Housing Act, about which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked, to extend the categories of homeless households with a priority need for suitable temporary accommodation. The order will ensure that, where necessary, local authorities must secure suitable accommodation for 16 and 17-year-olds. Wherever possible, we hope that efforts are made to reconcile those young people with their families and allow them to return home; but where there is real estrangement and 16 or 17-year-olds cannot return home, there can be no question that they will be at risk if they have nowhere to live and are forced out on the streets. It is right that housing authorities should provide a safety net in such cases and arrange appropriate accommodation and support.
	The order will also give priority need to people who are vulnerable as a result of fleeing their home because of violence. Evidence demonstrates that a high proportion of people who end up sleeping rough come from institutional backgrounds, including people who have been in care, prisons, long-stay hospitals or the Army. Discussions earlier this evening demonstrated the concern of many Members about those people. The order will extend priority need to young people aged 18 to 21 who have previously been in care and the other groups which I mentioned. The key test in all cases will be whether the applicants are vulnerable. I hope that the House will agree that a proper statutory safety net for vulnerable people is essential to protect them from the damage that homelessness and rough sleeping can inflict on them and to help them rebuild their lives.
	The Bill represents a big step along the road to achieving the Government's goal of ensuring that everyone has a decent home. It will help all social tenants by promoting choice and encouraging local authorities to adopt customer-centred letting schemes that give people more say in where they live. Most of all, it will deliver on the Government's commitment to social justice by giving extra protection to the most vulnerable people, making sure that they have a roof over their heads. I commend the Bill to the House.

Theresa May: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill, which, as Ministers know, has received support from the official Opposition throughout its passage. However, I am a little disappointed that although he was to have opened the debate on Third Reading, the Secretary of State is unfortunately not with us this evening. I dare say that he is preparing for tomorrow's debate, and well might he do so.
	I said that we support the Bill, although as has been clear throughout its passage and through the detailed and very good debate on Report, that does not mean that we have not had questions about its operation, or that we do not continue to have reservations about its impact. Those issues were ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on Report.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out early in his remarks, the measures that we are supporting tonight first appeared in a somewhat different guise as part of the Homes Bill, which was introduced prior to the election. It is worth recording again that had the Government not chosen to introduce in that Bill their ill-thought-out and unpopular measures relating to sellers' packs, the measures contained in the Homelessness Bill could have been on the statute book somewhat earlier.
	As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) observed, that delay gave Ministers time for reflection. From the comments made on Report, I hope that Ministers will accept that despite their time for reflection, there are still grave concerns about the full implications of some aspects of the Bill when they come into force. Despite the Minister's remarks on Third Reading, we must say that although we support measures in the Bill, it will not transform overnight the problem of homelessness in Britain.
	I hope that Ministers have had time over the summer to reflect on the Government's record on homelessness. Before coming into government, the Labour party made a number of promises about the way in which it would tackle the problems of homelessness and empty homes. Back in 1996, the Prime Minister told a Labour housing conference that Labour would
	"do everything in our power to end the scandal of homelessness, to tackle the spectacle of people sleeping rough on the streets and to end the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation."
	During the various stages of the Bill's passage there has been debate on the figures for homelessness. It is worth putting on the record that the latest statistics from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which were issued in September, show that priority homelessness in England has risen from 102,650 in 1997–98 to 114,350 in 2000–01, and that the number of homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has also risen from 4,500 households in the second quarter of 1997 to 11,340 in the second quarter of 2001.
	Another statistic that is relevant to our debate on homelessness was mentioned on Report by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who raised the important matter of empty properties. I entirely agree with him that in tackling homelessness, the issue of empty properties must be a priority. Again, before coming into government, the Prime Minister said:
	"We need an emergency programme to reduce the number of empty properties, including those held by government departments."
	Yet, as the figures stated by the hon. Member for Stafford show, there are a significant number of empty properties in the United Kingdom. From April 1997 to April 2000—the last period for which departmental figures are available—the amount of empty council housing in England has risen by 7 per cent. Local authorities and the Government need to address the issue of empty properties as a matter of priority. We all know the frustrations that constituents feel when they are desperate for housing and they see empty properties down the road. They cannot understand why something cannot be done.
	I shall refer to press reports from earlier this year. For example, in June, The Northern Echo referred to an estate in Bishop Auckland. It stated:
	"The tidy, well-kept gardens have been replaced with rows of burnt-out, boarded-up homes and overgrown gardens."
	The Western Daily Press referred to the Upper Horfield estate in Bristol. The article read:
	"Gardens of the boarded-up homes have become dumping grounds".
	The Observer referred to the Halton Moor estate in Leeds. It stated:
	"There are few people about because large numbers of the houses are empty, boarded up and vandalised."
	Earlier this evening the Minister said that the question of empty properties is often complex. I accept that there are issues that often go beyond the efficiency of a local authority in dealing with its properties. However, there are complex issues connected with behaviour on estates that need to be considered. Problems on estates caused by drugs, vandalism and antisocial behaviour may make other residents move out, which means that properties are left empty and derelict. If we are to tackle homelessness, we cannot allow a significant number of properties to lie empty. They are often derelict, and effectively they are going to waste. At the same time, there are people who are desperate for homes. They need to occupy those empty properties.
	The Government cannot rest on the laurels of their performance so far in tackling homelessness. The Bill will not wave a magic wand over the problem. However, I hope that it will encourage local authorities to take a more wide-ranging approach, to make it easier for them to tailor allocations to local circumstances and needs and enable them to provide greater variety of choice for those who find themselves homeless and reliant on the local authority or other providers for support.
	I welcome especially the objective of dealing with those who are at risk of violence other than domestic violence. It is sad that that problem needs to be incorporated within a homelessness policy, but it is necessary to do so. I welcome the fact that the Government will be dealing with it. I welcome also the proposals to deal especially with young people who are vulnerable and homeless. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) specifically referred to the scandal of the treatment of many young people who have been in local authority care. I hope that the Bill will go some way to provide the badly needed support for such young people.
	The transitional arrangements for the new system include the abolition of housing registers and increased flexibility for the increased priority categories. It is important that those who are on housing registers with local authorities have full information about the transition and the new arrangements that will come into place. I am sure that we all know from constituency cases that problems can occur when people are given insufficient or inaccurate information about housing that relates to their local authority and their local area. It is important that everybody is made aware of the new arrangements and understands why they have been brought into place.
	I shall comment briefly on the national homelessness strategy and the consultation that the Government have launched on it. It might seem slightly odd that at a time before the Bill is to be enacted, when the Government have only just launched their consultation exercise, we hear about a strategy that will set out action by central Government and local government to tackle homelessness. Perhaps the Minister will explain how the strategies that local authorities develop in response to the Bill will fit in with the national homelessness strategy.
	Many reasons exist for the increase in homelessness, not least the way in which the Government have made the housing benefit rules more difficult for local authorities to apply. The myriad regulatory changes—almost one a fortnight—that they have introduced in recent years make it difficult for those who administer the rules. That has caused genuine problems for people, as the better regulation taskforce and the local government ombudsman have recently shown. It often means that people lose their homes because of problems dealing with the regulations.
	We have questioned several other aspects of the Bill, and we await the full implications of its operation and its impact on homeless people. However, we share the Government's hope that the measure will enable local authorities to produce wider-ranging, more innovative approaches to homelessness in their areas. We hope that they will consider tackling their local circumstances and needs more flexibly. The different issues that different parts of the country experience will thus be addressed. I trust that, consequently, we can all look forward to making better provision for the genuine needs of those who become unintentionally homeless.

David Wright: I concur with the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about the quality of the debate on the amendments and on wider housing issues.
	I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced early in the Parliament; that shows the importance of housing issues to Labour Members. However, there has been a welcome consensus about the need to drive the measure through.
	Before I was elected to Parliament, I spent 13 years working in housing in the west midlands, dealing with the direct housing needs of local people and developing housing strategies for wider investment.
	The Bill emanates from the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all", which was published in April 2000. It is to the Government's great credit that they produced the most comprehensive statement on housing for more than 20 years.
	The Government have declared an ambitious programme of housing investment in the next 10 years to secure a decent home for all. That largely involves activity to improve housing conditions in a framework of renewed neighbourhoods. However, a key policy strand must be to assist those in greatest need: homeless people.
	I want to cover several issues that relate to the Bill and consider the way in which it will fit into the wider housing agenda. It requires housing authorities to adopt a strategic approach to tackling and preventing homelessness. I especially welcome the emphasis on partnerships with social services departments, registered social landlords and the voluntary sector. However, it is essential for the homelessness strategy to integrate fully with each local authority's wider housing and development objectives. The strategies should contain specific proposals for securing more affordable housing in urban and rural areas.
	Estimates by independent studies suggest that between 80,000 and 100,000 homes are needed annually to meet existing demand. I believe that many planning authorities do not use the powers that are available to them under planning policy guidance note 3 or section 106 agreements sufficiently aggressively to secure homes for rent, allied to new development. The Government could do much work on that to supplement the Bill.
	More resources are also needed through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme to deliver new rented homes. If authorities are to create homelessness strategies, they need also to adopt specific targets in their development plans for rented homes. The Government need to think about providing a more specific definition of affordable housing for target setting. At the moment, affordable housing targets in development plans do not include specific proposals on rented homes. If they did, it would be a particular advantage in alliance with the Bill.
	In delivering the homelessness strategy required by the Bill, authorities will need to give careful consideration to the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Targets are needed to reduce its usage, which currently costs the public purse more than £150 million. The private rented sector will also figure as a resource in most strategies to tackle homelessness. We have to acknowledge the massive scale of disrepair in the private rented sector, and we need a more effective national strategy to intervene in that area. Licensing for houses in multiple occupation will be important, but we also need to develop co-ordinated clearance and redevelopment strategies for areas beyond the reach of effective rehabilitation schemes.
	The best local authority homelessness strategies required by the Bill will focus in great detail on the special needs of individuals presenting themselves as homeless. A range of specialist housing provision with tailored support will be needed, usually linked to employment and training opportunities. There are opportunities for local authorities to ensure that that will happen. When local authorities' housing investment programme submissions are considered, Ministers and officials will need to think, when ranking local authorities, how effective they have been in delivering the homelessness strategy in their area. That can be directly carried out, and authorities are currently graded in terms of their housing investment programme strategy. This element of work on homelessness should be a key component of that ranking and, therefore, a key mechanism through which resources can be distributed to the best local authorities.
	In relation to the requirements on housing authorities, the abolition of the two-year time limit under clause 6 is particularly welcome. From experience, I can report that the current provisions are illogical and create great uncertainty in circumstances in which most local authorities act reasonably towards homeless applicants.
	It is important that the Bill places the emphasis on the local authority to be proactive through the repeal of section 197 of the Housing Act 1996. Local authorities should be in a position to offer advice and assistance to people needing suitable accommodation. The current provisions, under which local authorities can largely sidestep the legislation and offer advice and assistance only when accommodation is available in their area, are not successful.
	The element of the Bill that amends part V of the 1996 Act and prompts further choice is welcome in the context of creating sustainable communities. The Bill will support major progress being made on the neighbourhood renewal agenda. We need to generate a greater degree of tenure and income diversification on many estates, as identified by the social exclusion unit policy action team reports. Rented housing must be seen as a positive choice, rather than the tenure of last resort. For too long, we have allowed rented housing to be stigmatised, and have compounded that through inflexibility in the allocations process. The delivery of allocations needs to be transparent, but we also need to allow greater local letting activity, developed in partnership with local communities. In my experience, that can work very successfully if local people are given the opportunity to consider details in full. People are very flexible, and are willing to be accommodating to people who need to be housed.
	It is important to consider the impact of the Bill on different housing markets across the country. It is clearly appropriate to set out a national position on homelessness, as the Bill does. However, it will be applied and used differently according to how local housing markets operate. There is massive pressure from homelessness in some areas, particularly in London and the south-east, where housing costs, land supply and economic migration create overwhelming demand. That is also the case in some other areas.
	However, in many parts of the midlands and the north of England, there is a major problem of low demand and abandonment. Disrepair, antisocial behaviour, stigmatisation of rented housing and economic change have led to a spiral of decline in certain neighbourhoods. In areas of low demand, strategies developed under the auspices of the Bill will be radically different from those developed in, say, the London boroughs. The Government will need to consider regionally distinct approaches to those strategies and avoid a "one size fits all" response to housing market change. In many towns and cities, we shall need to consider the relatively new concept of housing market renewal areas, which will require significant co-ordination of Government resources. I hope that that will be a subject for further debate during this Parliament.
	I note that housing, unlike many other matters that we debate in the House, touches all our lives. We all need and deserve good housing and this country has a long tradition of providing housing for those in greatest need. The Bill renews that commitment and is legislation with compassion at its heart. It is, however, only one component of a wider drive to give people quality and choice in the housing market, so I look forward to further Government proposals to transform people's living environment for the better.

Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), who made an interesting and thoughtful speech from which many of us could have learned had he been able to make it when we began our deliberations many months ago.
	The Minister rightly said that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to find ways to deliver a long-term reduction in the incidence of homelessness and that the Bill is a big step along the road. However, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and other Members said, by itself it is insufficient. Much else needs to be done. The national homelessness strategy, which has been announced, will clearly play a key role in filling some gaps that cannot be filled by the Bill.
	Important issues that must be addressed have been touched on—for example, the crucial issue of empty homes, which was referred to by the hon. Members for Stafford and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). We might argue about the precise nature of the figures, but it is clear that the situation is obscene. There are about 750,000 empty properties and about 150,000 homeless households. We ought to be able to find far more effective ways of bringing those together.
	Temporary accommodation is dealt with in the Bill, but much more needs to be done to reduce its use and to improve its quality and suitability. I am delighted to hear that the Minister is adamant that the work of the bed-and-breakfast unit and the new legislation on licensing houses in multiple occupation and other properties will target that issue.
	We have debated how to help people who are already homeless, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the Bill refers to measures to prevent homelessness in the first instance. We have not dealt with that issue in detail, but I hope that the Minister will use every opportunity to draw attention to aspects of the strategies that local authorities must develop. We must make it a high priority. In that respect, she might be able to assist with a number of activities at national level, not least closer working relationships with mortgage lenders, to prevent some difficulties that people get into.
	The Bill focuses on those in priority need, but it does not address the provision of support for non-priority homeless families and individuals. There is an urgent need to support those categories and to find more effective ways to deliver a service in all our local authorities, not only to priority categories but to non-priority categories of homeless people. I suggest to the Minister that the Government could quickly tackle one issue and thereby provide enormous benefit. They should take urgent action to sort out housing benefit administration, which is a mess in so many places.
	The Bill, important though it is, could be seen as rearranging the deckchairs. It is an important rearrangement that will provide great benefit, but unless we significantly increase the number of affordable houses we will not be able to provide the choice-based systems that we want local authorities to adopt. The House will be aware that the spending review is not far distant. Many of us will examine its outcomes to see what it contains on housing.
	It is perhaps a strange occurrence that housing is the number one issue in the postbags of the vast majority of Members of Parliament and the number one issue raised in their advice surgeries, yet rarely have we debated housing. I am delighted that that is beginning to change, and that we have before us a Bill that, although not perfect, will provide great assistance to many of the least-well-off people in our society.
	The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), told us that in Committee we had frequently referred to the film "Groundhog Day". I suggest that that is not the best metaphor for what has happened tonight. Hon. Members will recall that in "Groundhog Day" events that started rather differently all ended up exactly the same. Today, we have tackled some of the issues that we have addressed before in a slightly different way, and we have made progress. We have had assurances from Ministers on various matters, and promises to consider issues in further detail. We have had assurances in respect of meetings with the Housing Corporation. I genuinely do not believe that "Groundhog Day" is the best analogy.
	In Committee, I noted with interest that the Under-Secretary told us that his preferred film was not "Groundhog Day" but "Three Amigos" by John Landis. For those who wish to check the record, it is at column 23 on 10 July.
	It strikes me that, regardless of the many differences that separate the major parties in the House and notwithstanding some minor differences, we have shown clear unanimity in our desire to see the Bill get on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

David Lepper: I welcome the provisions in the Bill. In my area, Brighton and Hove council is already doing many of the things that will be required of all local authorities. Preventive work through our housing advice centre has been important in preventing many local people from becoming homeless. We have devised a homelessness strategy, led by the local authority but involving, as hon. Members have said it should, the other partners in the development of that strategy, including the private sector.
	However, there are constraints on what my local authority can do, especially under the Bill. Those constraints are the availability of social housing—only 15 per cent. of our housing stock is social housing compared with a national average of 22 per cent.—and the availability of affordable housing—87 per cent. of the households in housing need in my local authority area cannot afford suitable accommodation at market rents. In my area, the average price of a one-bedroom flat is £90,000, and the average rent for a one-bedroom flat is £583 per month. Average earnings per week are about £20 below the national average.
	I welcome these measures, especially those relating to victims of violence and vulnerable young people. I welcome the Minister's assurance that they are only part of the strategy to deal with the problem of providing the housing that people deserve. Irrespective of the Bill, market forces determine that in the area that I and my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and for Hove (Mr. Caplin) represent this will be only part of the weaponry that we need to deal with the problem of homelessness and threatened homelessness.
	I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government will consider other measures to help to provide more affordable housing.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to have at least a short time in which to sum up the debate. It has probably been one of the longest debates that we have had on homelessness for a long time. I am grateful to the Government for producing a Bill which, hopefully, will improve the current position rather than doing the opposite. As I said earlier, over the last three years the number of priority homeless has increased from 102,000 to 114,000. That is an unwelcome trend, which I hope the Bill will address.
	Our Prime Minister recently vowed:
	"Our approach will be founded on the basic aim of ensuring that everyone has the chance to a decent home—both the majority who want to own their own homes and the minority who either cannot afford to buy or choose to rent."
	We all say amen to that, and I hope that the Bill will help to achieve it. However, the record over the last four years is not over-promising.
	Between 1993 and 1996, 150,600 new social dwellings were built by local authorities and registered social landlords, but, sadly, between 1997 and 2000, only 95,500 were constructed. The amount of new social housing has therefore fallen by 37 per cent. We must reverse that trend. Shelter has calculated—I think the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) mentioned this—that we need 100,000 houses over the next 10 years, and I welcome the Government's funding which is aimed at achieving that. If we could achieve it, principally through registered social landlords but with capital levered in from the private sector—

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have very little time, but I will give way just once.

David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that levering in private funds through "coerce transfer" of housing stock from good local authorities is a totally vacuous concept that does not bring in a single penny piece?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I rather wish that I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman. I have always got on well with him in the House, but I could not disagree more strongly with what he has just said. Government funding is of course one method by which we will improve our total housing stock, but I feel that the private sector has a major role to play. I have seen some very innovative new housing schemes in my constituency in which registered social landlords have combined with the private sector. Some involve local authority allocation, some involve shared ownership and some are purely in the rented sector. If the hon. Gentleman does not approve of that he does his constituents a great disservice, because what he recommends would mean many fewer registered social housing units being built in this country.
	As I have said, I welcome the Bill, but it is a pity that it is slightly in a vacuum in that it does not consider the Government's overall homelessness strategy. I look forward to the legislation that will follow the strategy, to the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, and to measures tackling private landlords who abuse their position in the registered housing sector. All that was announced recently in a press release from, I believe, the Minister of State. So we have more legislation to come, and it will be interesting to see how this Bill fits in with it. It would also be interesting to know when the Government will produce that further legislation.
	It is all very well to come up with legislation, but those on the ground have to operate it, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Some of the Government's actions have not been at all helpful in dealing with homelessness. In her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) referred to the excessive changes in housing benefit regulations. The amount that we pay out in housing benefit has soared, not entirely under this Government, but over the past 10 years. Moreover, local authorities are finding it very difficult to implement the regulations, partly because they keep changing so often. There are between 70 and 80 circulars a year—more than one a week. There are particular difficulties where local authorities have contracted out the management of their housing benefit.
	Sadly, time does not permit me to deal with other aspects of the Bill. Suffice it to say that I welcome provisions to deal with antisocial neighbours and the priority needs orders dealing with vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds and 18 to 21-year-olds.
	I hope that the Bill will achieve what it is designed to achieve, but I have some doubts, and I wish that the Government had been prepared to accept some of our amendments.

Alan Whitehead: For once we have had a long, informed debate on housing with a solid result in the form of a Bill that has the support and approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House. There have been differences, which were aired and examined in Committee and in the Chamber, and there have been changes to the Bill as it has made its often tortuous way through the House. It must be a successful Bill because I know that success has many fathers, and there have been competing claims to the paternity of the changes. I am delighted that, overall, it has enjoyed solid support at all its parliamentary stages.
	The hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) demonstrated, in different ways, their support for the Bill. We realise that homelessness will not be transformed overnight, but the Government have the target well within our sights and we are taking action in a number of ways, not least through the Bill. Other initiatives include action on rough sleepers, the bed-and-breakfast unit, the target of 100,000 new affordable homes—not by 2010 but by 2004—new, wide-ranging housing investment, and the homelessness strategy, which is intended to tackle the problem with central and local government and key stakeholders in the housing and voluntary sectors. The strategy will help to set the broad context within which housing authorities will prepare their homelessness reviews.
	We must take a wider approach to homelessness and housing need. I was delighted to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), who is new to the House but clearly demonstrated his great expertise. He will be a great asset to the House in housing matters. He is right to say that we must have a broad strategy, underpinned by the Government's actions. That approach was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper).
	The Bill will strengthen the protection available to homeless people and will encourage local housing authorities to adopt customer-centred lettings schemes. Taken with the Government's sound economic policies, our substantial increases in capital investment in housing and the wider policies that we are pursuing following last year's housing policy statement, the Bill will help us to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent home. The Bill reflects our decency towards each other in society, whatever our circumstances. The House can be proud to support it, and I trust that it will receive a Third Reading.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social Security

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

ABANDONED VEHICLES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Barbara Follett: I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on a problem that has been causing me, my constituents and many other hon. Members great concern in the past three years—abandoned vehicles, or more accurately, abandoned cars. No one living in Britain today can have failed to notice the number of burned out and rusting hulks that are being dumped on the streets of our towns, in the playgrounds of our schools, in the car parks of our businesses and on the verges of our country lanes. Some of those cars stay in place for months. They provide a dangerously unsafe playground for our children and amusement for our vandals, who occasionally set them on fire.
	In the past two years in my constituency, the number of cars removed and scrapped has increased by 67 per cent. However, it is a countrywide problem. Last year, in Birmingham, 10,000 cars were dumped and scrapped; in Dagenham more than 4,000 cars were dumped and scrapped, which is a 41 per cent. increase; and in Glasgow 2,000 cars were dumped and scrapped.
	The reason behind the sudden proliferation of abandoned vehicles is simple. Scrap metal dealers used to pay drivers about £50 for their old cars; now drivers have to pay scrap metal dealers £50 to get rid of their cars. The change is due to a decline in the global market for scrap metal since 1998. Three years ago, scrap metal was worth £60 a tonne, but now it is worth only £3 a tonne. The worldwide decline in the price of scrap metal has led to a countrywide increase in the number of abandoned cars, costing councils such as mine and those of my hon. Friends a great deal of time and money.

Siobhain McDonagh: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with abandoned cars is the length of time they have to be stored? Councils such as my own London borough of Merton have to pay to store such cars, so that a car's value is soon exceeded by the cost to the council of storing it.

Barbara Follett: That is precisely right. As many councils like mine have nowhere to store abandoned cars, the cars tend to be stored on our streets and in our lanes.
	Contractors charge local councils a minimum of £25 per vehicle to remove cars, and many staff hours have to be worked before local councils can be legally rid of cars. Local authorities have the power to recover the costs of disposing of dumped cars from their owners, but as ownership is almost impossible to prove or incredibly expensive to prove, that power is more theoretical than practical. Currently, Stevenage borough council, like most other councils in the United Kingdom, is providing an almost free service to car owners who cannot or will not pay for their vehicles to be scrapped.
	Depending on how it is implemented, the European Union end-of-life vehicles directive, which comes into force in April 2002, could make matters significantly more difficult and expensive for councils in the short term. The directive will impose strict controls on the hazardous components of end-of-life vehicles. It will also make the recycling of batteries, tyres and oil a priority. Under the European end-of-life vehicles directive, recycling can be done only after the vehicle has been transferred to an authorised treatment facility. How many councils have such a facility? I know that my council does not have one. Although all that is highly commendable and very desirable, it will significantly add to the cost, the complexity and, even worse, the time required to dispose of those vehicles.

Meg Munn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the current long-winded process of removing abandoned and burned out cars is completely incomprehensible to our constituents who suffer that degradation in their neighbourhood?

Barbara Follett: I could not agree more. The way in which this problem brings down neighbourhoods is terrible. In one neighbourhood in my constituency, 10 or 12 cars are parked to a street. They are removed, but a week later they are back.
	I am here tonight to ask the Government to act now to reduce the financial and administrative burden on local authorities. It is expected that when the directive comes into place in April, local councils could be charged anything between 50 per cent. and 250 per cent. more per vehicle than they are now.
	There are four ways in which we can help. First and foremost we can shorten the period of notice required before councils can legally remove and scrap a vehicle. At present, the length of time is seven days. In my opinion, those are seven wasted days, as drivers almost never reclaim their vehicles. In a recent pilot scheme in Medway, around 600 abandoned vehicles were removed without notice and scrapped. I believe that only one driver came forward to reclaim his vehicle.

Jonathan R Shaw: One of the reasons why the scheme was so successful was that the DVLA and the local authority were operating together. If we allowed local authority officers to use DVLA legislation, they could react much quicker. The current legislation is the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, which many of us—particularly my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment—will remember was not Labour's finest year in terms of collecting rubbish. We need to bring the two powers together.

Barbara Follett: I could not agree more. Indeed, my second point is that we should ensure that all local authorities have an electronic link to the DVLA. This would enable them to trace the last registered owner swiftly. My borough council has such a link, but unlike the local police, they have to pay for it. Could Ministers consider providing local councils with such a link free of charge, as they do for the police?
	Thirdly, we could make the DVLA's registration process more effective so that the final owner of a vehicle can be accurately identified and action taken if they abandon their car. Fourthly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) said, we can encourage the DVLA and the police to work in partnership with local councils to speed up the disposal of abandoned vehicles. For example, a 12-week partnership called Cube It was launched at the beginning of the month in Gravesham. Council officers there are working with the police and posting untaxed cars with notices. The DVLA's contractors come in immediately and remove them for scrapping. They then fold them into cubes, which is why the scheme is called Cube It.
	Finally, it might be helpful if drivers of cars that are over three years old were obliged to display their MOT certificates on the windscreens of their cars. If a car was neither taxed nor had its MOT certificate—in other words, if it were deemed unroadworthy—and appeared to be abandoned, local authorities could be given the right to remove it and scrap it at once.
	I know that the measures I have outlined are short term and do not address all the problems caused by the increase in abandoned vehicles and the introduction of the European directive. However, something has to be done urgently to prevent the proliferation of rusting hulks across our once green and pleasant land. Local authorities need national Government help now to tackle this problem. This is what I and other hon. Members are seeking tonight.

Graham Allen: With the leave of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, I will make a brief contribution.
	You will know, Mr. Speaker, that hundreds of Members of all parties have asked you for debates on this issue, which is a matter of concern across the country and across all parties. You will know also that the Prime Minister raised the issue in a speech on 26 April this year. One might not think that this was an issue worthy of prime ministerial speeches, but it is of great concern—a quality of life issue—for people in towns and cities throughout the land. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage on raising the issue tonight.
	I have taken the liberty of talking to a large number of Members, and I want to distil briefly what colleagues have told me are their priorities, which are shared by Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire constabulary.
	First, notices to remove vehicles under the Amenities Act 1978 should have immediate effect rather than being implemented only after seven days; otherwise, those vehicles are joyridden, abandoned and smashed in, and then another group of youngsters may set fire to them.
	Secondly, we should extend to police and local authorities the powers that my hon. Friend mentioned, in line with those of the DVLA, to remove untaxed vehicles within one day, which would require amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988.
	Thirdly, we should provide greater resources to the DVLA to increase countrywide coverage for checking untaxed vehicles. At present, one contractor is employed to cover the whole country and has to move around from area to area.
	Fourthly, there must be a greater use of police discretion in removing hazardous or obstructing vehicles. Again, a simple, cost-free guidance note from the Home Secretary to all local authorities and police would enable that to happen.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend agree that nearly all abandoned vehicles are hazardous, because they are potential bombs? In Slough, the average abandoned vehicle—there are plenty to choose from—is burned out in short order, and is very dangerous because young children are involved.

Graham Allen: We all know that, and our constituents know it, but unfortunately the police have to be extremely careful about the legal position. A clear and explicit guidance note would give them the security to act immediately on those problems.
	Fifthly, greater use should be made of existing powers to prosecute those who abandon cars, linked into the faster track system of registered keepers to which my hon. Friend referred. Many vehicles change hands for a few pounds in the pub and nobody bothers to register them, making life extremely difficult for the police. People who abandon cars should also get penalty points on their licence for all future vehicles.
	Many Labour Members are present and any one of them—along with 200 or 300 others—could speak on the subject.

Joan Ryan: Does my hon. Friend agree that many local authorities, and indeed the police, are getting a very poor press on the issue, when it is no fault of theirs? Many authorities are doing a lot to tackle the issue in innovative and imaginative ways, but the legislation does not allow them to take the steps that we and our constituents so want them to take.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend makes the point eloquently. All we are asking, as a group of Members of Parliament, is that the Government take a number of simple, clear and almost entirely cost-free measures. They are small technical changes that will be welcomed in every town and city throughout the land. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister not to delay on this heartland issue but to introduce a package of simple measures as soon as he can.

Michael Meacher: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on securing this debate on an issue that is unquestionably of concern not only in Stevenage but throughout the country. The fact that so many of my hon. Friends have attended the debate and made a series of sensible points that the Government will take very seriously in the consultation that is now under way is an indication of the importance that we attach to the subject—but I note that not a single Opposition Member is here.
	We are well aware that abandoned vehicles are a major and growing headache not only for Stevenage borough council but for many local authorities in England. My hon. Friend was right to mention the change in the scrap metal price and the fact that one now has to pay the car breakers to collect a car, rather than receiving money for it. That is the nub of the problem.
	The number of old vehicles dumped in Britain last year is estimated at one third of a million, and the level of dumping has increased enormously in recent years. All too often vehicles are abandoned in residential streets, where, as my hon. Friends have said, they quickly become an eyesore and attract the attention of vandals. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, in the worst cases they become an explosive nightmare. Many are burned out, which places an increasing burden on the fire service. The police, too, have to get involved when abandoned vehicles are in a condition that is dangerous to members of the public and to children who, unfortunately, find them particularly attractive.
	Local authorities often have difficulty in tracing the last known keeper of a vehicle—I shall return to that problem in a moment—and are thus unable often to recover the costs of dealing with such vehicles. Those problems are now being accentuated because of the falling price of scrap metal and the fact that the value of old cars has fallen, as a result of which we know that old cars are changing hands in an informal market, without documentation, for no more than a few pounds.
	What action are the Government taking? That is what my hon. Friends want me to tell them. Since the election, my Department and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions have been working together on proposals for tackling the problem of abandoned vehicles.
	The main proposals are as follows. We shall reduce the present notice periods used by local authorities, so that abandoned vehicles can be removed more quickly and efficiently, thus reducing the risk of vandalism and the likelihood that a particular vehicle will be reported as abandoned several times in different places. That will reduce costs. We shall also enable local authorities to use the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's wheel- clamping powers to remove unlicensed vehicles—possibly by acting as the DVLA's contractor—and provide better access to the DVLA's records. I shall return to that point in a moment.
	In the longer term, it is proposed to change vehicle registration and licensing procedures to ensure that the DVLA's vehicle record is more accurate—although this would almost certainly require primary legislation. I am happy to tell the House that we now aim to consult on proposals resulting from those recommendations in the very near future.
	What action is being taken by the DVLA? The DVLA has an interest in tackling unlicensed vehicles, which up to 80 per cent. of abandoned vehicles are. The agency operates a nationwide scheme to wheel-clamp and impound unlicensed vehicles to tackle the problem of vehicle excise duty evasion. To date, about 71,000 vehicles have been clamped or impounded, and about half of these have been disposed of, mainly by crushing. The scheme is proving very successful, and has already encouraged more than 384,000 extra motorists to relicense voluntarily—although "voluntarily" is a bit of a term of art. That brings in more than £47 million in additional revenue, which is quite useful.

Siobhain McDonagh: I am sure that all Members will be pleased with the increase in revenue and the effect of the DVLA tow-away vehicles, but I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there are only two tow-away teams in Greater London. That means that each constituency is visited less than once a year. Would it not be better to double, or even triple, the number of tow-away teams, given the high incidence of untaxed cars in the capital?

Michael Meacher: It certainly would, and we intend to do exactly that.
	A national scheme to detect vehicle excise duty evasion, using automated number plate reader camera systems, was launched on 11 October in London. The system, called Stingray, is van based and operated by DVLA staff. The system will be used to supplement the police and other enforcement agencies in detecting and deterring VED evasion.
	A number of pilot schemes are being run to counteract the problem of unlicensed and abandoned vehicles. We look to the success of those pilot schemes in order to roll out similar schemes nationally. The first began in Kent, as my hon. Friend said—I cannot remember his constituency. [Hon. Members: "Chatham and Aylesford".] How could I forget Aylesford after all the discussions? The first pilot scheme began in Kent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) mentioned. It began on 22 January and involved the agency joining forces with Kent police, Kent county council, Medway borough council and Kent fire service. For the first time, the agency's wheel-clamping contractor targeted abandoned vehicles under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978—to which several of my hon. Friends referred—as well as wheel-clamping unlicensed vehicles. The pilot scheme ran for eight weeks. It was called Operation Cubit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage said—she gave the correct derivation of the name—and resulted in more than 700 vehicles being removed and destroyed. The downside was that the number of vehicle fires increased significantly, presumably as the local villains sought to destroy forensic evidence—you cannot win them all—but that is not a reason for not continuing or extending the project.

Jonathan R Shaw: As my right hon. Friend said, several hundred vehicles were removed from the streets of the Medway towns, including many in my constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) pointed out, the removal of those cars also meant the freeing up of several hundred legitimate parking spaces, especially for people who live in terraced housing where parking is at a premium.

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend is right. It is a win-win-win situation. It stops offenders, collects more money, ensures that the DVLA has more accurate information and provides more parking spaces, which are also none too available in London.
	Two pilot schemes in London—in Newham and Lewisham—are looking at the scope for local authorities to use the DVLA's powers to wheel-clamp abandoned vehicles and remove them after 24 hours—I stress that time, because it is significant. Since 9 April, more than 900 vehicles in Newham have been wheel-clamped, with more than 460 released on payment of fees. More than 250 vehicles have been destroyed, mainly by crushing. The remainder are in the pound awaiting their fate. Lewisham experienced similar, albeit lower, figures.
	If those pilots are successful, the Prime Minister has said—as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) pointed out, the Prime Minister regarded it as significant enough to make it an important item in a speech earlier this year—consideration will be given to rolling out the scheme more widely. The initial assessment of the schemes suggests the makings of a solution to the problem.
	Keeping the vehicle register up to date is also an important part of our armoury. The DVLA is very much aware that if the enforcement of abandoned vehicles is to be improved, and it is to support initiatives such as congestion charging and speed and red light camera enforcement, the vehicle register has to be accurate, up to date and capable of identifying the vehicle owner. Without that ability, there is no effective sanction against those who dump cars, and it is not possible for local authorities and the police to recover the costs of removing dumped cars.
	The DVLA register is estimated to be up to 94 per cent. accurate, but it is clear that there is a significant hard core of vehicles for which it is not possible to trace a current owner. Those are also the vehicles that tend to be uninsured, without an MOT certificate, to be involved in fail-to-stop accidents and to flout parking and speed regulations. They are also the cars that are most likely to be abandoned. Targeting those cars effectively is critical. Car owners are under a legal obligation to notify the DVLA when they transfer a vehicle, but a minority of owners deliberately avoid notification to avoid the costs of keeping their cars taxed, insured and roadworthy, and to escape detection by enforcement cameras.
	Keepers are under a legal obligation to notify the DVLA when they transfer a vehicle, but there is a minority that deliberately avoid notification in order to avoid the costs of keeping their cars taxed, insured and roadworthy, and to escape detection by enforcement cameras. They are, inevitably, largely old and low-value cars. Action is taken against those who refuse to comply when they are identified. Last year the DVLA pursued more than 36,000 motorists for failure to notify it of changes to vehicle ownership. That, of course, is only the tip of the iceberg. We need to consider how this hard core of vehicles can be brought within the system.
	I believe that the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 has allowed some important initiatives to be launched. For example, the requirement for those applying for duplicate vehicle registration documents to provide proof of identity, making it more difficult for traders to sell on vehicles without documentation, is a useful extra weapon in our armoury, but we recognise that more needs to be done. The Government's consultation exercise will contain further proposals for tightening up the system and ensuring that the last recorded keepers of vehicles cannot avoid their responsibilities.
	There are indications that the new procedure is fulfilling its objective of achieving higher compliance with registration requirements, thereby improving the accuracy of the information held on the DVLA's vehicle record.

Graham Allen: My right hon. Friend has hit four of the five points that were of concern to many colleagues in my little round robin. To achieve the score of 10 out of 10, will he also deal with the question raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) about the removal of hazardous and obstructing vehicles and getting the definition right from the Home Office? If he does not have that information with him—I fully understand why that may be the case—will he undertake to write to me and to my hon. Friends about what the Home Office can do in that respect?

Michael Meacher: I will. Burned-out vehicles are dangerous to children as they often contain noxious substances, as well as being an eyesore. Prompt action is needed to get these vehicles off the street immediately. The local police and the local authority must work together to achieve that. I understand that the arrangements in place in Stevenage borough council have been quite effective in this respect, and that the local police have a good record. I am keen to see more examples of such co-operation as it benefits all the parties involved. I will give a fuller answer to my hon. Friend's question in consultation with the Home Office.
	I was trying to achieve five out of five, if not 10 out of 10, by referring to end-of-life vehicles which are an important part of the equation. The end-of-life vehicles directive's aim is to reduce and prevent waste produced from old vehicles. The directive is not about abandoned vehicles except in the sense that they often tend to be end-of-life vehicles. The directive introduces certain provisions which will require all end-of-life vehicles to be taken back and treated by authorised treatment facilities. The directive also requires producers to pay for all or a significant part of the cost of free takeback and treatment of an end-of-life vehicle from 2007 for vehicles made before 2002, and from 2002 for vehicles made from that date. That should reduce costs and ease the current burden of abandoned vehicles incurred by local authorities.
	The directive also allows member states to fund free takeback and treatment between 2002 and 2007 at their discretion. That means that from 2007 the implementation of the directive should mean that local authorities should not have to pay for the takeback—

Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way in the last seconds of his reply. Might he consider giving councils money under that takeback provision for European member countries?

Michael Meacher: Obviously, that is an option. Under the European Union directive, that is at the discretion of member states. This is ultimately a matter for the Treasury, but the important point is that within a reasonably short time scale, local authorities, as a result of the operation of the directive itself, will be removed from the burden of the costs, which are considerable and growing.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.